Voting often feels like begging. You only get to decide which bully will take your lunch money. The best approach may be to turn your back on the whole thing and at least deny them the respect they presume to have. You can’t keep your money, but by ignoring them, you can keep your self-esteem.

I once again put that feeling aside to support the one politician who doesn’t seem to want my lunch money: Ron Paul.

In 2007, Ron Paul supporters were fewer, younger and louder.

Perhaps the older, calmer and more numerous supporters are a sign of the main-streaming of the liberty message. In 2007, Ron Paul’s area was relegated to an obscure corner of the straw poll:

This corner wasn’t even occupied on Saturday:

If I understand correctly, the campaigns bid for spots. In 2007, Mitt “the plastic man” Romney had the central area:

This year, it was Paul:

In the surrounding area, Santorum and Ron Paul seemed to dominate signage, with the edge going to Ron Paul.

In 2007, now-forgotten Senator Brownback had an impressive presence in the front area between the event and the parking lot:

I had the feeling his campaign was in trouble though, because his goons wouldn’t let me or my girlfriend into his tent to eat some of his barbeque. First they said I needed to vote. So I voted (for Ron Paul), and returned to show them my stained thumb:

Then they didn’t let me in because they didn’t believe I was a Brownback supported. I honestly don’t know how they concluded that. I wasn’t wearing any liberty paraphernalia. Perhaps my appearance and good manners were insufficiently pro-war and pro-Patriot Act.

So we went to eat some of the plastic man’s food. Grey burgers on white bread, if I remember correctly. The free food helps me feel better implicitly endorsing these sociopaths through my participation.

This year, I ate three free snow cones from the large wind-energy tent:

Here’s how it works. (This an important lesson for anyone entering politics.) You go up to them, point to what you want and say “give me this, please.”

As a mere participant at the straw poll, you’re relegated to snow cones, burgers, a pro-wind power battery-operated fan, pens, barbeque, pepsi’s, tote bags, buttons and bumper stickers. But I imagine as you claw your way up the political ladder, all America becomes your point and take buffet, and as our wars progress, much of the rest of the world too.

Energy people had a big and scary presence.

Somewhere they found people to wear “I’m an energy voter t-shirt”:

One of the speakers, an industry consortium rep. spoke about reducing regulation and creating jobs. I suspect he speaks to Republicans about reducing regulations (except for regulations which eliminate competitions) and to Democrats about subsidizing energy alternatives.

To show your obvious enthusiasm for wind energy, you were allowed to go sign a giant wind turbine blade.

There are many such turbines in Iowa and neighboring Illinois. You can see them driving on 80. They look as still and beautiful as if they were painted onto the horizon.

Here’s what I magic markered as a show of my appreciation for this important subsidy:

I entered the main arena to listen to a few speeches:

An excellent and logical video explained that Iowa is first in the nation for several reasons:

- Iowans ask tough questions and can’t be fooled by slick ads

- Iowans volunteer their time

- Iowa is voted #1 by young professionals

- Iowa is #1 in wind energy

- Iowa is #1 in corn, soy and other crops

- Iowa is #1 in medical care . . . “without the federal government’s help,” they added.

Then I listened to Rick Santorum. (Have you ever tried Googling his name?) He had just exhaustively toured the state and wanted to make sure all Iowans got a chance to meet him and sit down “in their living rooms and libraries,” because listening to people is what’s missing from politics.

How sensible!

He talked about his “little engine that could campaign.” What an outsider!

And talked about how the media has been reluctant to give his campaign the coverage it deserves. Don’t you HATE when the media ignores a candidate! It’s obvious to me that Santorum is an honest politician who the elites don’t want you to know about.

He said the “United States is in jeopardy of losing its freedom because of one man and one bill. Obama-care.”

Instantly, I felt relief from my concern about unsustainable wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Pakistan, militarism toward Iran, TSA groping, the Patriot Act, domestic spying, fiat money, fractional reserve banking, bailouts and nationalization of major industries. phew!

Santorum also said he wanted people to look him in the eye and kick his shins like they were tires, which sounded exceedingly sensible to me.

I also listened to Tim “T-Paw” Pawlenty’s speech which was occasionally interrupted by chants of “T-Paw,” from his genuine and grassroots supporters.

When he said that Valley Forge wasn’t easy, settling the West wasn’t easy, World War II wasn’t easy, going to the moon wasn’t easy, but it’s not about easy, I felt dizzy with patriotic fervor, and might have pulled my pants down and opened my wallet right then and there if friends had not physically restrained me.

He spoke about maintaining the peace by maintaining our strength, and I tingled all over with the extacy of America’s greatness. I stumbled from the auditorium in search of a military contractor who’d accept as a donation what little remained in my wallet after purchasing my $10 bus ticket.

But after getting another free snow cone, I lost momentum and decided instead to walk around and enjoy the spectacle:

Michelle Bachmann was so important and presidential, that a whole bunch of official looking people ran behind her golf cart as she waved to confused and indifferent attendees. The flashes of many cameras with long lenses quickly had their effect, though. The confused because curious. The curious gathered, and the crowd became an attraction in itself.

This is another important lesson for the many aspiring politicians who read my blog.

This year, there was no fair tax Ferris wheel:

There also seemed to be far fewer buses than in 2007:

which may or may not have anything to do with non-participation of Mitt Romney, widely rumored to have bused in Iowans from all over the United States in 2007.

I’d heard the results would be announced at 4:30. Then I heard they’d be announced at 5, then 5:30. At almost six o’clock, they were read. I watched C-SPAN which was broadcast on televisions outside.

They announced that over 16,000 people participated, and the winner was . . . . . Michelle Bachman!

Then they showed the number of votes received by Santorum, then Cain, then Mitt Romney, then Newt, then Huntsman, then McCotter. I didn’t know how may Paul received, but it obviously wasn’t important.

Then they showed the number of voted received by Gittering, then Pawlenty, then they went down the list of important, viable candidates again: Santorum, Cain, Romney, Huntsman, McCotter . . . .

Arithmetic told me that Michelle Bachman and that Ron Paul guy must have split about 10,000 votes between them. It was only back at the bus that I discovered they had almost tied, and only after I returned to the loving embrace of my neighbor’s wifi network that I gained more perspective:

- How Michele Bachmann Bought the Ames Straw Poll

- Ron Paul got ‘shafted’ by the media: Politico’s Roger Simons

- Jon Stewart exposes media censorship of Ron Paul

From the 2008 campaign:

- Censoring Ron Paul – Why the rEVOLution will not be televised

- Censoring Ron Paul (then and now)

I think this is a ridiculous combination of Marxism and Keynesianism typical of high-level government officials, with a stress on Marxism, perhaps indicative of a former Labor Secretary.

1) A Marxist devotion to egalitarianism. Good and bad are evaluated in terms of less equal and more equal. Marxisms relies on a fervent hatred of the rich. Here’s an example of why pure egalitarian analysis is flawed:

Imagine a rich town where infant mortality is 3/100,000, and a poor town where infant mortality is 6/100,000. Imagine some technological breakthrough which reduces it by one in each town. So infant mortality becomes 2/100,000 and 5/100,000. Normal people would hail this as an improvement. But Marxists see that it represents an INCREASE in inequality. Instead of infant mortality being twice as high in poor areas, it’s now two and half times as high.

2) He claims we should hate the rich and that there’s a budget deficit because the rich aren’t paying their share.

Shouldn’t the fact that government spending doubled under Bush, and tripled under Obama enter into this analysis? Isn’t that a no-brainer?

Even if the government slaughtered all the rich people and took their money (something which had been attempted in Ukraine and elsewhere), even if the government took 100% of the profits from all fortune 500 companies, we still couldn’t afford the 2011 budget.

Here’s Iowa Hawk’s wonderful illustration: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ#t=2m29s

There’s also the fact the rich aren’t the same people from decade to decade. There’s a lot of mobility.

3) “instead of joining together” workers are competing

The Marxist dichotomy of all workers vs. all employers is bullshit. Workers compete against each other and employers compete against each other. Only politicians claim that the interests of huge groups of people are identical. Politicians need large groups of people to hate and/or fear other large groups of people.

4) The middle class can’t borrow, lacks purchasing power = high unemployment.

Spending does not drive the economy, and debt certainly doesn’t drive the economy. Savings do. When people spend less on consumer goods, it means they are saving more (ie planning for the future). In a free economy, this would mean that investment money becomes available for long term projects that will produce goods in the future.

Certain business need to close but opportunities are created for long term projects. The structure of production needs to change, and we ought to simply let it change.

In our Keynsian economy, the government tries to keep spending going, even though people are trying to save.

5) He’s also suggesting something completely ridiculous and wrong headed. He says that politically connected people have too much sway over government, and wants to fix this by giving the government more power. This would back fire if he ever had his way. Giving more resources and power to government means more incentive for people to control government. Letting people keep more of their money is a much better solution.

Also, Austrian School economist Robert Murphy addresses of glaring falsehoods in the former Labo Secretary’s presentation:

I consider myself fortunate to be in Ukraine on a Fulbright Scholarship. It shelters me from the sensationalism surrounding the announcement that “Osama bin Laden, the terror mastermind killed by Navy SEALs in an intense firefight, was hunted down based on information first gleaned years ago from detainees at secret CIA prison sites in Eastern Europe.”

The reaction has been impossible to avoid altogether, as Twitter, Facebook, and many of the blogs I read exploded with videos of euphoric celebrations beside the White House and in Times Square, affirmations of America’s greatness, wishes by otherwise nice young women to see the bullet riddled corpse, and praise given to all soldiers and veterans, including praise from President Obama.

I remain bewildered by the changing and contradictory justifications for our many wars: the well being of Iraqis and Afghans (and now, Libyans), preventing the use of weapons of mass destruction, establishing democracies, Colin Powell’s Pottery Barn Rule (We broke it, so we own it). Didn’t President Bush announce in 2006 that the pursuit of Osama Bin Laden was no longer a goal of our war efforts in Afghanistan?

Timing and political expedience seems to have swung our rationale back to the pursuit of Osama Bin Laden.

Should we pause to consider the return on our investment of money, blood and reputation? I am two and half years removed from my last day in the military, and life-times removed from the world view I had when I first commissioned as an infantry officer in March 2000.

My doubts centered on the realization that my membership in the military, though full of adventure and challenge, just like the television commercials promised, did not provide a valuable service. For this reason, I politely decline President Obama’s thanks.

The military, myself included, makes America less safe from terrorism, debt, and tyrrany. I began to consider the ancient and noble institution of the Army a gigantic toy for politicians who, with the thinnest pretenses, went adventuring all over the world.

I no longer consider myself at war with Afghanistan or Al Quaida, though I understand that many Americans do. I consider war to be very much the business of demagogue politicians who pretend to defend Americans from Muslims, and demagogue Islam-o-fascists who pretend to defend Muslims from Americans. I wish we could make them fight one another directly without the involvement of so many others, but this would never happen. They are cowards who work hard to convince better men to do the fighting.

I’d like to point out the difficult fact that Afghans killed by errant artillery strikes or nervous, undisciplined soldiers, or what a friend of mine calls “Nobel Peace drones,” are just as innocent and just as human as the New Yorkers who were killed when three skyscrapers collapsed on September 11, 2001.The tragedy is firstly that many innocent people get killed, and secondly, that so many good people are easily convinced to sacrifice blood and money. It is best to have as little to do with our wars as possible.

In contrast to the revelers on the National Mall, my pride and identity now have little to do with national pride and national identity. I am as sovereign an individual as the tax code allows me to be.

The only aspect of this announcement I find comforting is that now politicians will likely be confronted with meek requests to undo the TSA, warrant-less wiretaps, secret prisons, suspensions of habius corpus, the department of homeland security, and the wars in Afghanistan and elsewhere. They will have to again justify these institutions, which they will do very easily. I will take minor comfort when the questions are asked.

I retain hope that America can regains the liberties it lost in the name of our many wars. However as I watched the exuberant masses intoxicated with national pride at the announcement of Osama Bin Laden’s death, I thought of not of the importance of restoring our lost liberties, but of running away; escaping and hiding from the collectivist madness — somewhere where neither my person nor my wealth nor my pride nor my identity can ever be dragged into such a barbaric enterprise again.

Here’s the mass email I received. My response is below:

Did you see that Diane Sawyer has a special report coming up this week? They removed ALL items from a typical, middle class family’s home that were not made in the USA . There was hardly anything left besides the kitchen sink. Literally. During the special they are going to show truckloads of items – USA made – being brought in to replace everything and will be talking about how to find these items and the difference in price etc.. It was interesting that Diane said that if every American spent just $64 more than normal on USA made items this year, it would create something like 200,000 new jobs! WAS BUYING FOOD THE OTHER DAY AT WALMART and ON THE LABEL OF SOME PRODUCTS IT SAID ‘FROM CHINA ’

FOR EXAMPLE THE “OUR FAMILY” BRAND OF THE MANDARIN ORANGES SAYS RIGHT ON THE CAN ‘FROM CHINA ‘

I WAS SHOCKED SO FOR A FEW MORE CENTS I BOUGHT THE LIBERTY GOLD BRAND OR THE DOLE SINCE IT’S FROM CALIF.

Are we Americans as dumb as we appear — or — is it that we just do not think while the Chinese, knowingly and intentionally, export inferior and even toxic products and dangerous toys and goods to be sold in American markets?

70% of Americans believe that the trading privileges afforded to the Chinese should be suspended.

Why do you need the government to suspend trading privileges? DO IT YOURSELF, AMERICA !!

Simply look on the bottom of every product you buy, and if it says ‘Made in China ‘ or ‘PRC’ (and that now includes Hong Kong ), simply choose another product, or none at all. You will be amazed at how dependent you are on Chinese products, and you will be equally amazed at what you can do without.

Who needs plastic eggs to celebrate Easter? If you must have eggs, use real ones and benefit some American farmer. Easter is just an example. The point is do not wait for the government to act. Just go ahead and assume control on your own.

THINK ABOUT THIS: If 200 million Americans refuse to buy just $20 each of Chinese goods, that’s a billion dollar trade imbalance resolved in our favor…fast!!

Most of the people who have been reading about this matter are planning on implementing this on May 1st and continue it until June 1st. That is only one month of trading losses, but it will hit the Chinese for 1/12th of the total, or 8%, of their American exports. Then they might have to ask themselves if the benefits of their arrogance and
lawlessness were worth it.

Remember, MAY 1 TO JUNE 1st !!!!!!
START NOW.

Send this to everybody you know. Let’s show them that we are Americans and NOBODY can take us for granted.

If we can’t live without cheap Chinese goods for one month out of our lives, WE DESERVE WHAT WE GET!

Pass it on, America …… BUY AMERICAN !!!!!

My response:

I’d like to briefly point out two of the several economic fallacies evident in this mass email.

1) The idea of a trade deficit is mostly nonsense. The whole discussion of trade deficits serves only to employ government economists. If I buy bread from the baker across the street, he is profits because of the value he puts on my money, and I profit because of the value I place on his bread. Replace the street with an international border and the example should be identical with both of us enriched by the exchange, however there will suddenly be a $4.99 trade deficit (or whatever the cost of bread). Government economists will write lengthy articles. Opportunistic politicians will make courageous speeches about the controls which need to be placed over the economy. It’s nonsense. Governments don’t trade. People trade. The more they’re allowed to do so, the better.

2) Paying more money for identical goods will not create “something like 200,000 jobs,” regardless of what Diane Sawyer says. It will destroy jobs. Rather than repeating the argument (which I’ve done more often that I thought possible), I would refer anyone who’s interested to chapter 11 of Henry Hazlitt’s classic “Economics in One Lesson.” It’s available for free here: http://www.hacer.org/pdf/Hazlitt00.pdf

In fact, if you’ve been learning economics from Diane Sawyer, I recommend the whole book — for everybody’s sake.

“The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they know about what they imagine they can design.” ~ F.A. Hayek

Have a good day and please don’t trespass on my property.

I continue to be alarmed by seemingly intelligent friends who seem to consider libertarian political dissent to be something close to a disease.

Here is a recent article one friend posted on facebook.

Now that social scientists have begun to apply themselves to public fights over the hard sciences, I find that they have a great deal to offer. The latest exhibit: The work of Andrew J. Hoffman, Professor of Sustainable Enterprise at the University of Michigan.

Hoffman is an “organizational theorist.” As such, he believes that “failing to attend to the deeper social and cultural forces within the climate conflict, and in particular the counter-movements that resist the dominant logic,” is a big mistake.

“Drapetomania” was the name of psychological condition given to the minority of slaves in the United States who for some unknown reason ran away from their masters.

The Soviet Union put people who didn’t recognize the obvious benefits of central planning in psychiatric hospitals.

I wonder if there’s a term for mentally diseased people such as myself who don’t believe humans are making the Earth warmer.

So, if you had to guess which much-discussed potential Republic presidential candidate was excluded from Dick Morris’s review of contenders, who would it be?

Here’s a clue from this Hannity interview:

Still confused?

Here Peter Schiff interview Dick Morris, who quits the interview, and mentions the unmentioned man — RON PAUL.

I think this interview reveals that Dick Morris, like most Republicans favored by big media, wants to replace Obama’s socialism with their own brand of socialism.

So it should be no surprise that Morris ignores true anti-socialist, Ron Paul. Ignoring Dr. Paul seems to be a common tactic:

Washington Post’s debate commentary 2007 excluded Ron Paul

Glenn “Bandwagon” Beck’s poll excluded Ron Paul

BBC’s election guide excluded Ron Paul

And the list goes on, and on, and on.

Check out my two earlier posts for more:
Censoring Ron Paul (then and now)
Censoring Ron Paul – Why the rEVOLution will not be televised

When private enterprises are inefficient/losing money/unwanted they go bankrupt. The turmoil is confined to the owners, workers and investors. As a last ditch effort they try to improve efficiency and quality.

When public enterprises are inefficient/losing money/unwanted they attempt to increase/maintain their share of tax dollars. The turmoil is thrust in the face of every citizen. As a last ditch effort, they resort to spectacle and demagoguery.

Great pictures of the London protests can be found here.

These are the socialists. They believe they are entitled to receive something and a price of their choosing. No doubt they also consider the ongoing economic crises (which is about to get *MUCH* worse), as part of the same conspiracy that raises their tuition.

It is important for those of us who believe in liberty to win the intellectual debate, to point out to the world that it is exactly the same sense of entitlement felt by government, its vast bureaucracies, and its constituencies, that leads to the catastrophic economic crisis we are about to face.

As regular readers of this blog know, I am wary of police and the government monopoly on violence. However this is a protest in which security (public or private) had a very appropriate role.

One of the pictures shows blatant, senseless destruction of private property by protesters:

I consider this issue another tragedy of public property. Because the definition of marriage is presided over by the state, those of us who have strong beliefs about it are FORCED to do battle.

Can you imagine a world in which the government didn’t even know if I was married, didn’t preside over the definition and didn’t require a $40 fee for permission?

Conflicting points of view co-exist more peacefully when government isn’t involved.

In a such a world, the fact that two people choose to call themselves married, or the fact that some people don’t consider my marriage legitimate is no more a threat to me than, say, my neighbor adopting dietary habits that I consider nonsensical and counter productive.

Please feel free to disagree with me. Most of my friends do. :)

I guess we’ll wait and see. I like his support for auditing the Federal Reserve and limiting spending. I like this skepticism about our wars too, though greatly prefer this father’s outright opposition.

I’m also very much influenced by Hans Herman Hoppe’s earth-shattering book, Democracy the God that Failed. I’ve begun to doubt that Democracy works, so I’m largely just an amused bystander when a politician is elected who seems to support my belief in individual liberty.

The Constitution was good, so good that it took 300 years for power to become centralized, concentrated, and predatory, but nevertheless, here we are. Realize that we used to be a nation in which half the population didn’t have to work.

Perhaps the best thing that can happen is a falling apart of the United States, preferably into 310 million independent nations. (peacefully!)

From a correspondence with friends:

I hold the very radical belief that taking someone’s property by force or threat of force is stealing, regardless of whether it’s done by an individual or institution or government, regardless of whether you call it taxation, and regardless of what virtues are invoked to justify the violence.

My apologies for the long-winded reply, but this stuff is my passion. I’m happy to make my case, even if we agree to disagree afterward:

> “Is it wrong to keep a standing army?”

Yes. The United States did not keep a large standing army during peacetime until 1948. Since then, we’ve had a foreign, undeclared war every decade, and never mind the fact that our Constitution requires congress to declare war. The psychopaths in government are having too much fun sending suckers like me off to war and their friends are making too much money.

How you like them apples? You’re a citizen of a country that can’t go a single decade without invading another.

How about the fact that we spend more than the rest of world COMBINED on “defense” which to me looks more like “offense”?

> “With all that you own and all that was given to you just by virtue of being born in the US, don’t you think that is worth protecting?”

I feel tremendous admiration and gratitude to all the entrepreneurs who risk their personal wealth to produce goods and services they hope I will VOLUNTARILY buy.

These are the people we should revere. These are the people to whom we should build monuments, not the power hungry politicians and bureaucrats who are too stupid, lazy, and cowardly to provide us with things we want. They cannot serve society, so they seek to rule it. Entrepreneurs build civilization. They are the ones who need protection, primarily from their government.

> “You use the services of the country, therefore, you have to pay your share.”

1- There are many that don’t use, which I’m also required to pay for.

2- I’d hardly categorize the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the bank bailouts, the nationalization of General Motors, the TSA’s pornographic body scanners, the NSA’s eavesdropping on my telephone calls, the Guatemalan Syphilis Experiment, and the BULLSHIT speeding ticket I got as “services.”

3- I’d absolutely *love* to stop using ALL public “services” in exchange for keeping all the money which people VOLUNTARILY give me for my work.

But regardless, I’m glad you at least used the words “have to.” You acknowledge then that government-provided services are coercive.

Violence will be used against me if I attempt to do without the benefit of infecting unsuspecting Guatemalans with Syphilis, for example. Initially, my refusal to pay for this public “service” will only inspire increasingly menacing letters from the tax collector, but ongoing refusal to pay will be met with physical violence, including lethal force should I attempt to defend my property. (btw, I pay all my taxes — out of fear.)

Please acknowledge the violence.

It can be justified only if you believe that a peaceful system of voluntary exchanges cannot provide education, security, food for the hungry, housing the poor, transportation, culture, etc.

Then you are faced with a dilemma: Should we leave the poor to their fate or should we violently separate people from their wealth? Should remain ignorant about the advanced stages of Syphilis or should we use the threat of violence to force people to pay for government experiments?

Of course, I believe there is overwhelming evidence that all these things are better provided in a free market (all the ones which are worth doing that is, and none of the ones which aren’t) . Therefore, the dilemma you might feel between violent taxation and some societal need doesn’t even exist.

Because your statist approach is the violent approach, I think the burden of proof lies with you; you must to demonstrate the government’s superiority to the free market. Nevertheless, I’ll make the case that the free market is the better provider, just because it’s so easy to do:

> 1) Security.

If you search for “mall cop tasers” on youtube, you don’t find anything (I didn’t), because privately hired security, unlike security hired by the greedy, lazy, cowardly, power-hungry sociopaths in government is accountable.

You might also be interested in the not-so-wild west where private security flourished, and the murder rate was lower than that of most modern-day U.S. cities:
http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=552

Also, gun town USA — where crime nearly vanished, and not a single person has been murdered in the 25 years since a renegade mayor required every household to purchase a gun:
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=41196
(I’m philosophically against the requirement, because it’s coercive, but I think this demonstrates the ability of people to protect themselves peacefully.)

> 2) Transportation

The railroad was build on private initiative in pursuit of private profits. It worked great until government strangled it with regulation, then killed it by FORCING everyone to subsidize an interstate highway system.

The obvious failure of the free market then precipitated the nationalization of Amtrak, a government monopoly, which, if I remember correctly, has lost 32 billion dollars to date.

Despite the best efforts of the statist ideologues, Indiana, Chicago and California are considering selling roads to entrepreneurs who are willing to risk their private wealth in the providing of transportation services.

> 3) need a structured state government to implement changes

Like a hole in the head.

Local governments have either outlawed or required people to kiss the ring of governance, beg permission and pay a hefty licensing fee for the following privileges:
-arranging flowers in Louisiana
-selling coffins in Louisiana, even for monks
-interior designing in DC or Florida
-showing tourists around in Boston
-labeling GMO-free foods “GMO-free”
-selling raw milk
-running lemonade stands in Portland ($120 health department fee)
-selling pumpkins and Christmas trees into Lake Elmo MN
-delivering your neighbors garbage to the dump in San Francisco
-putting signs in your store windows in Dallas
-eyebrow threading in Texas
-training Yoga instructors in Virginia

You risk the violence of government for committing these “crimes.”

4) civil services

How about the fact that poverty in the US fell by 1% a year from 1950 until 1968 when the government’s “war on poverty” began? Since the government’s “war on poverty,” the poverty rate stagnated and remained so despite a quadrupling of the government’s anti-poverty budget.

Source:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=064YTtSxVSo#t=46m10s

Consider this next time you hear someone say the free market punishes the poor.

5) (I’ll cover education, though you didn’t list it.)

As I said, I believe the burden of proof lies with the advocates of violence. I challenge you to find any evidence that public education has been anything but a pathetic, disastrous failure despite a tripling of the federal education budget, and a doubling of the number bureaucrats per student:
http://www.lostrepublic.us/archives/4630

There’s also the fact that before America’s first public schools appeared in Massachusetts, there was near 100% literacy.

I think all the evidence of the superiority of the free market in providing services generally provided by government is irrefutable. You may find ways spin, question and undermine it, but instead of doing that, can you find evidence that the government approach is superior? Can you find any evidence whatsoever to justify the coercive funding of public “services”?

People in the Soviet Union were standing in line for butter. After several hours, one of them said:

“This sucks. Why does government control food distribution?”

There were some nods of agreement, but the young man behind him, a Phd student, said “the free market is great for the rich, but what about the poor? Who would feed the poor?”

“Can you imagine a system in which food is only grown and sold for profit??? A system in which everything was about MONEY!” said another man. “How barbaric!”

“I can speak to this personally,” said a fourth man, a drunk who wobbled on his legs. “Every day of my life I eat from my government quota of food. If it wasn’t for the government, I would starve!”

“Yes, you’re right, the original dissenter agreed. Perhaps food is too important to be left to the free market.”

A corresondence with a friend about to begin studying libertarianism:

You’re asking all the right questions about government’s role and environmentalism. I’m happy to share my perspective.

W.r.t. Global Warming, I’m personally skeptical. I think it’s going to go the way of many other government endorsed “scientific consensuses” of the previous century, like eugenics (50,000 American citizens were FORCIBLY sterilized), the consensus that black people’s brains were anatomically inferior, the coming ice age of the 1970s, the imminent over-population problem of the 1980s, and of course the fact that peak oil has been predicted since Standard Oil struck black gold in Texas.

Whenever there is a “scientific consensus” about a threat to humanity whose solution calls for the use of massive government power, be skeptical.

So, I’ll limit this discussion to pollution, conservation and water.

Pollution and conservation are best handled by private property. If you own woods and want to chop them down, no problem. If you, however pollute the ground water which contaminates your neighbor’s property, then there is a role for the justice system.

This is a philosophically different approach from the arbitrary regulations set by government.

* In this lecture, Stephen Kinsella mentions how California’s environmental law requires all gas companies to purchase a specific gadget, which, by the way, is patented by a politically connected California company. This means more expensive gas for everyone. Government controls are rife with corruption. Contrast this with the private-property approach — So long as you’re not polluting your neighbor, who cares what technology you use?

* Government controls also take an all-or-nothing approach. Either entrepreneurs are completely forbidden for turning vast stretches of resources into goods that you and I want, or the government leases the resources with far too few restrictions to a mining/logging/drilling company whose only goal is to extract as much as possible, as fast as possible.

Imagine if you and I owned a stretch of woods. Imagine all the innovations which we’d create negotiating with loggers, meeting their needs, but also maintaining the land for future use. Politicians don’t have this foresight. Perhaps we would make money from hikers, campers, hunters.

Another characteristic of government controls is that no matter how much lobbying happens, the government remains just a few pen strokes away from swinging from one extreme to the other.

The vast resources spent lobbying government about control of government-owned resources would be better spend, buying, owning and managing natural resources. Sadly, it’s illegal for people to buy / own very much land. Realize, also, that the environmental lobbies are extremely well-funded and powerful, and could realistically buy vast amounts of land for the purpose of conservation.

The method of privatization, of course, is an important and difficult issue, but in general, I think private property is a much better scheme for environmentalism than government regulation.

Have confidence that every human desire is a business opportunity, including the desire to preserve/enjoy nature. Maybe our privately owned woods can out-compete other privately owned woods for the business of hikers by preserving endangered species. What a great blurb this might be on our billboards. Private ownership creates a market-incentive to protect endangered species. This is in stark contrast with the government approach of punishment. If you do happen to own a little bit of woods and the government finds some endangered animal on it, you’re fucked, and the way people deal with this is to shoot, shovel and shut-up.

Water. I just read a great little book called “water for sale” which studies privatization of water distribution. (I’d be more interested in the more radically libertarian idea of private ownership of water, but this doesn’t really exist anywhere.) In any case, the short little books addresses all the common objections — how can we force the poor to pay for water???

It makes an exhaustive and brilliant case for privatization of water distribution. There are many places in the world where, after privatization, poor neighborhoods received potable water for the first time ever. It’s a great success story, which it’s critics have a hard time denying.

Expect a whole lot of socialist propaganda in your courses.

These issues are similar to food freedom issues, in that the socialists and I usually agree on the problem, but have exact opposite solutions.

For example, you can try to reduce the amount of Ecoli in beef by having the government do more — stricter laws, stricter enforcement, stricter regulation — that is the socialists’ solution.

Or you can reduce the amount of Ecoli in beef by having the government do less — end the MASSIVE subsidies of corn. Corn-fed cows have 3x the amount of ecoli as grass-fed. The latter is only done because government subsidy makes it economical.

Here‘s a review I wrote of a documentary about Monsanto.

(More on food freedom)

Well, the Mises Institute has done it to me again. I was so taken by Jeffrey Tucker’s recent lecture, “How Government is Unraveling Civilization by Force,” that I posted it on a social news site, calling attention to what I considered the lecture’s most provocative moment: Tucker’s quoting of Lew Rockwell: “It’s as if the socialists discovered that their plan creates poverty, so they decided to change their name to environmentalists to make poverty the goal.” Aside of its provocative tone, the quote summarized the lecture rather well.

Sometime I think I engage in online economic and political debates because they sharpen my rhetorical skills and to force myself to re-examine and re-explore my libertarianism. Other times, I think I’m driven by a masochistic determination similar to the impulse which led me to sport of distance running as a teenager.

I immediately found myself in another long, long, frustrating debate about the Austrian school with a anonymous user who at least seemed earnest in his belief.

I’ve always admired the willingness of the Austrian School, and that of its great ambassador, Ron Paul, to address the best of the opposition. The willingness stands in stark contrast to the usual public debate, in which each side acknowledges only the most ridiculous, desperate, disreputable members of its opposition as if they represented the whole. The public debate consists of little more than building and burning straw-men.

I want to share the debate which ensued not to burn my own straw-man, though I admit, it occasionally lapsed into absurdity, but to demonstrate how statist ideology fails to live up even to the standards by which it judges and condemns the Austrian School.

One of the most challenging steps in my eventual acceptance of the Austrian School, was realizing the supremacy of theory over empiricism. I do not blame anyone for initially recoiling at the suggestion that economics defies empiricism, or, at least, defies an empiricism comparable to that of the hard sciences. I did.

When asked to live up to their own empirical standards, it becomes evident that statism begins with axiomatic acceptance of state power and free-market fallibility, and relegates the empiricism and math they so readily demand of the Austrian School to a role no more important than that of parsley on a steak. It is a garnish; little more than counting. They count taxes, budgets, unemployment checks, paper dollars, volumes of concrete, cheese, meat, corn, cosmonauts, tanks. They attempt to understand human society in all its complexity but their only tool is a tape measure.

Here’s the debate:

HIM:

That statement is so far removed from reality it’s disturbing to know that people consciously make this their world view in order to support an equally delusional ideology that actually creates poverty in the real world.

> Austrian economics was ill-thought of by most economists after World War II because it rejected mathematical and statistical methods in the area of economics.[27] Its reputation rose somewhat in the late 20th century with the work of Israel Kirzner and Ludwig Lachmann, as well as a renewed interest in Hayek after he won the Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel (a.k.a. the Nobel Prize in Economics).[28] Following Hayek, one of Ludwig von Mises’s students, Murray Rothbard, became prominent in both Austrian applied theory and Libertarian philosophical thought.[29] However, it remains a distinctly minority position, even in such areas as capital value.

It’s interesting to know that the Austrian School of Economics has basically been unable to show that any of their principals actually hold up in the real world. The whole sub field of economics basically only works as a thought experiment.

ME:

For the sake of argument:

> It’s interesting to know that the Austrian School of Economics has basically been unable to show that any of their principals actually hold up in the real world.

Keynesian Economics vs. Austrian Economics

Applying Economics to American History

HIM:

Applying theory after the fact is something any idiot can do. There is no mathematical or scientific basis to anything Austrian School economists claim. It’s like Voodoo Economics, it’s all faith based.

ME:

Well, the first of the two videos I posted show Peter Schiff, a follower of the Austrian School predicting the crash of the housing market at a time when Bernanke, the Fed, and all the Media’s talking heads were saying it was impossible. Watch the video and you’ll see him ridiculed for making his prediction.

Other examples:

– In his book Socialism (1920), Ludwig Von Mises not only predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union, but said the country would be full of factories which produced almost no ready consumer good.

- Congressman Ron Paul, Austrian School follower, July 16, 2002:

> by transferring the risk of a widespread mortgage default, the government increases the likelihood of a painful crash in the housing market. This is because the special privileges of Fannie, Freddie, and HLBB have distorted the housing market by allowing them to attract capital they could not attract under pure market conditions.

- When the world entered the all-paper money regime, most economists said than the price of gold would fall from $35. The Austrians predicted the opposite.

- The Austrians were right about the 1970s stagflation and the explosion in the price of gold after the gold window was closed.

Your move. :)

HIM:

There is nothing more than theory to any of that. That’s the entire point and you’re actively trying to ignore and obfuscate that point.

Show me where there are any mathematical or scientific examples that support those things happening in real world situations.

There are none, the Austrian School of Economics has never worked as anything other than a theory.

ME:

A valid concern. This point deserves more attention that we can give it here. Nevertheless:

I believe economics, the study of human action, defies mathematical or “scientific” modeling because of its complexity. In fact, mathematical modeling seems to always cherry pick whichever data provides the best propaganda — like the Soviet Union claiming a high GDP as evidenced by the fact that it produced vast quantities of concrete. Never mind the fact that citizens (subjects?) didn’t want more concrete. They wanted food, jeans, cosmetics, condoms, etc.

From F.A. Hayek’s Nobel acceptance speech:

> It seems to me that this failure of the economists to guide policy more successfully is closely connected with their propensity to imitate as closely as possible the procedures of the brilliantly successful physical sciences an attempt which in our field may lead to outright error. It is an approach which has come to be described as the ?cientisticattitude an attitude which, as I defined it some thirty years ago, ?s decidedly unscientific in the true sense of the word, since it involves a mechanical and uncritical application of habits of thought to fields different from those in which they have been formed.. . . . Unlike the position that exists in the physical sciences, in economics and other disciplines that deal with essentially complex phenomena, the aspects of the events to be accounted for about which we can get quantitative data are necessarily limited and may not include the important ones.

edit: PS — how can you read Ron Paul’s 2002 statement about a housing bubble, or watch that Peter Schiff video where he gets ridiculed for predicting the housing crash, and not respect the forecasting power of Austrian Economics?

HIM:

That’s not a valid excuse for explaining why their models don’t work when in real world situations. If human behavior was too difficult to predict then how is it that they have developed an economic model that predicts how a free market would operate?

It’s not too difficult, they just got it wrong, that’s why the Austrian School of Economics is a relic from over a century ago.

ME:

Human behavior is not too difficult to predict and model with theory — artificially low interest rates create business cycles, minimum wages cause unemployment, government subsidies of loans cause irresponsible lending.

Human behavior too difficult to predict and model with math.

HIM:

BS, absolute bs. The whole field of statistics exists to predict human behavior. Google is so good at predicting human behavior using their alogrithmns that they know what you’re thinking.

Austrian Economists deny this because their philosophy of economics does not stand up to any real scrutiny.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-ausmain.htm

> Summary
>
> The Austrian School of Economics is a tiny group of libertarians at war with mainstream economics. They reject even the scientific method that mainstream economists use, preferring to use instead a pre-scientific approach that shuns real-world data and is based purely on logical assumptions. But this is the very method that thousands of religions use when they argue their opposing beliefs, and the fact that the world has thousands of religions proves the fallibility of this approach. Academia has generally ignored the Austrian School, and the only reason it continues to exist is because it is financed by wealthy business donors on the far right. The movement does not exist on its own scholarly merits.

A pre-scientific approach? Please. Austrian Economics was destroyed a long time ago.

ME:

I’ve offered many examples of Austrians accurately forecasting economic events.

Can you offer examples of where the number crunchers have done similar things?

Can you offer examples of economic theories arrived at by your “scientific” approach from whichever school of economic thought you believe has the best approach?

Also, if you’re in the mood, why didn’t all those number crunchers see the housing bubble collapse coming?

> http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-ausmain.htm

They quote Paul Samuelson, the mathematician/economist, who, as late as 1989, claimed the Soviet economy was poised to overtake ours, and that it served as proof that command economies can thrive.

> Mainstream economists believe in fiat money; Austrians believe in the gold standard.

> Mainstream economists assert that the mystery of the business cycle is deep and poorly understood; Austrians claim the government causes it.

I would say these two points are accurate.

Perhaps I’d be better off agreeing to disagree, but I think the case for business cycles caused by artificially low interest rates is closed. I think it’s supported both deductive and empirically.

Likewise, the case for commodity money (money that can’t be printed) is huge. I’m surprised anyone out there is even attempting to defend fiat money.

HIM:

But, you just said that people actions are impossible to predict, are they or aren’t they?

Why won’t proponents of Austrian economics test their theories like everyone else?

Why does Austrian economics fail to stand up when tested like other ideas about economics are able to?

Why? Because it’s a failed theory that real economists gave up on over 100 years ago. It’s a rich mans philosophy that’s sold to plebes to keep their hopes alive.

It’s voodoo economics, it’s faith based optimism, it’s religion disguised as economics, nothing more than worshiping the false god of the market.

ME:

> But, you just said that people actions are impossible to predict, are they or aren’t they?

No I didn’t. I said human behavior is too complex for physics-like mathematical models. Reread my comments.

I offered you many examples of accurate forecasts of important events made by Austrian School economists when all “mainstream” economists were predicting the opposite.

Do you have any examples of the triumphs of mathematical modeling in economics?

HIM:

Yes you did, you said human behavior is impossible to predict and then you claimed Austrian Economists had predicted human behavior plenty of times. Take your hocus pocus fruity economic theories and find someone dumb enough to buy them because no one with half a brain has given a fuck about Austrian economics in over 100 years. Except suckers.

ME:

Just re-read this whole thread. Nope, I didn’t. I said it’s impossible to model with math.

Perhaps we should agree to disagree about Austrian Economics.

Can you make the case for mathematical modeling in economics? Perhaps cite some instances where mathematical economics predicted significant events?

HIM:

That’s why Austrian economics is a myth, it’s been placed on the scrap heap of failed economic thought.

Peoples behavior can be quite reliably predicted using mathematical models, all modern theories are tested that way to insure that they work. The only people who claim that mathematical and scientific models don’t work are Austrian economists because those models show that Austrian economics don’t work.

Do you know what they call theories that don’t work? Failures, that’s when you pick yourself up and make new observations and come up with new theories that actually represent what happens in the real world.

That’s what most people do anyway. If you’re an Austrian School Economist you hold onto a dead theory for 100 years after it was tossed on the scrap heap of failed economic theories.

The Austrian School of Economics is worthless.

ME:

Can you name some non-Austrian economic theories that work?

Can you name some successes of your approach to economics, or successes of economists who believe in your approach?

HIM:

There are currently only two basic schools of economics, supply side and demand side. Economics alternates between serving the needs of one before switching back to serving the needs of the other. These two elements are constantly in and out of balance. Take away all of the names and different schools of thought and that is all economics ever tries to achieve.

The Austrian School is really just old school supply side economics.

All currently used economic models have been tested in the real world economy and all share similar elements. Regardless of that, it always comes down to an argument over who to favor in order to create a successful economy.

The wealthy claim that they make the economy run and rewarding them with more money means that they can create an even greater economy.

Everyone else, when they’ve really examined how money flows, tends to see that demand creates a healthy economy. So they favor a system that doesn’t punish effort but ensures that there is enough consideration for the demand side of the equation to keep things working.

ME:

Okay, you still haven’t cited any successful predictions, or articulated any theories, but thanks for the explanation. Serious questions here:

> The wealthy claim that they make the economy run and rewarding them with more money means that they can create an even greater economy.

Who does the rewarding?

> they [everyone else] favor a system that doesn’t punish effort but ensures that there is enough consideration for the demand side of the equation to keep things working.

What sort of system gives “consideration for the demand side”?

Also, if you think of any successful predictions of significant economic events made by non-Austrians please let me know. Or let me know of any theories.

HIM:

Those who continue to work and support their empires while accepting less and less for more productivity every year. Ultimately this leads to demoralized workers who rightly demand their contribution to the success of the overall system be recognized.

You have a very limited idea of who should be rewarded for a successful nation.

I’m apparently not answering your questions in a way that you can understand I’m answering them.

ME:

1) Nothing you’ve said rests upon a foundation of mathematical proof similar to what you’ve demanded of Austrian Economics.

2) I cited examples of when Austrian economists accurately forecasted major economic events (despite mass denial and ridicule). Can you cite examples of non-Austrian economists accurately forecasting major economic events?

3) All your theories (none of which seem to involve any math or empirical study), presuppose a very powerful, very benevolent force which presides over an economy, selecting winners, and upholding “justice”. For example:

> it always comes down to an argument over who to favor in order to create a successful economy.

> The wealthy claim that they make the economy run and rewarding them with more money means that they can create an even greater economy.

> favor a system that doesn’t punish effort but ensures that there is enough consideration for the demand side of the equation to keep things working.

> workers who rightly demand their contribution to the success of the overall system be recognized.

> You have a very limited idea of who should be rewarded for a successful nation.

I’m interested to hear you elaborate on who does the “rewarding,” “favoring” and “ensuring,” how they do it, and what would happen if they didn’t.

HIM:

Dude, you just don’t get it. That’s life.

ME:

Obviously not. Thanks for the dialogue.

As usual, when something important happens that might reflect poorly on the government, our media does what it does best: it lies.

Here’s the latest example. The original, widely published story was this:

A U.S.-led military rescue operation ended in failure Friday when a Taliban militant set off explosives that killed a British aid worker kidnapped two weeks ago in eastern Afghanistan, Western officials said Saturday.

. . . .

During the rescue, Western officials said, one of the captors detonated explosives near Norgrove, killing himself and the aid worker, who was spearheading a development project run by Development Alternatives Inc., an international consulting firm based in Washington, D.C.

It’s become a little harder to find the original. I excerpted the above from this McClatchy Newspaper.

Only later, after the shock, and false-reality sets in, after our interest wanders elsewhere, do we get the actual story:

A grenade thrown by U.S. forces may have killed a kidnapped British aid worker in Afghanistan, British Prime Minister David Cameron said Monday, as the U.S. military announced an investigation into the failed rescue attempt.

(source)

. . . but, but, but, the original was so convincing. I mean I could almost see it. Just like in the movies: selfless rescuers coming to the aid of an attractive woman, while evil terrorists stand ready to blow up her (and themselves) in the name of evil fanaticism.

Looking back at the original report, it seems the military anticipated, i.e. “prepped the battlefield” for the apology they’d eventually be making:

“There was no choice,” said a senior official with the U.S-led military coalition in Afghanistan who asked not to be identified because he was not authorized to officially discuss the incident. “There was good information that this needed to be done because there were concerns that her life was in imminent danger.”

I’m going to go out on a limb and presume the “Western officials” were well versed in the 25 disinformation techniques and knew from the start their duty was to bullshit. I mean, look at the level of detail in the original misinformation:

Two Western officials said the captor used a suicide vest.

Some might even call it . . . . L-Y-I-N-G.

I intend no disrespect to the fallen or to the soldiers. I myself served in Kunar province where the incident took place, and know some of its valleys as well as I know the back of my hand. I’ve enjoyed great friendships with my fellow soldiers, Afghans and aid workers.

R.I.P. to all the fallen.

I make this critique because I’m soooooooo sick of all the fucking lying.

In war, truth is the first casualty. ~Aeschylus (525 BC – 456 BC)

See also: