Archive for the Uncategorized Category

Politics and Economics, Principles and Pragmatism

Posted in Political Rant, Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , on December 14, 2008 by lilburtonboy7489

Too many times have I heard people talk about politics and economics being two separate worlds. People believe you can be a social liberal, and fiscal conservative. That the role of the state somehow differs from the economic system. What these people do not understand, is that the economic system of a country defines the role of the state. Economics and politics cannot be isolated from one another.

If you believe in a true free market, your view of the state’s role has already been decided. The free market cannot tolerate taxation. Taxation opposes the entire idea of a free market. Without taxation, what can the government possibly do? It would have no funding. Without funding, the government could not fund its courts, police, military, roads, social security, medicare, a central bank, or even your local DMV. With a free market, the government would cease to exist. The free market is anarchy.

Pretend you break up political philosophy into two groups; Statists and Anarchists. If you favor any form of taxation or regulations, you have just become a statist. You have decided that you do not believe free will should be upheld. You are saying that people should be controlled by others. Using consistent logic, the argument permits government control. The current debate among politicians isn’t whether the government can rule others, but rather to what extent. By this logic, it is permissable to take from some, and give to others. It is permissible to violate property rights, because there is no such thing within a state.

You either believe in a free market or you don’t. You are either an anarchist or a statist. So why is there so much fighting between statists? Some statists even say that the government should not violate our property right. This shows a complete lack of consistency. These small government politicians have taken an inconsistent stance, void of all principles. This is called pragmatism. How can politicians argue from a principle stance of rights, when they have already shown they do not believe in rights?

Russ Feingold is a Senator from Wisconsin. He has been one of the most heroic opponents of the PATRIOT ACT. He opposes it because it is a blatant violation of our property rights. However, Feingold is also a pure socialist. He believes we should all be given free education, healthcare, and welfare spending in general should be massively increased. So what’s the issue here? The issue is the support for the state. Support for the state shows that the government can violate all rights it sees fit. So there is a principled stance by these statist politicans. Once the principle is established that the state is permissible, every decision after that become pragmatic. This makes it entirely inconsistent to make an argument for rights or principles in general.

One it has been established by a politician that the state is legitimate, that politician must not make any argument stemming from a belief in rights. As I mentioned earlier, rights cannot exist within a state.Instead, he must argue that the results of policies will accomplish their goals. Take the bailouts as an example. In order for a statist politician to remain consistent, he must simply make his case based on his predictions of how the bailout will impact our economy. In order to argue that it is wrong for the government to do so, he must argue against the existence of the state as well.

Of course, everything mentioned above is assuming logical consistency, which is non-existent in today’s political realm. This brings me to one of the most inconsistent groups I have ever studied; Libertarians.

I like to break libertarians into two groups; Principle Libertarians and Pragmatic Libertarians.

The Principle Libertarians argue for minimal government. They say we have property rights, and the only legitimate role for the government is to protect these rights. They argue for this with one thing in mind, and that is morality. They believe that we have rights that need to be protected. However, the problem, is that these libertarians believe that an entirely coercive government is the solution to protecting these rights. In order to do so, the government must first violate these rights through taxation and other means.

The belief in property rights should that the rights cannot be violated under any circumstances. Consistency constitutes rights. Believing that the government should protect our rights is an inherently statist claim. It says that the government can violate these rights. From this point, you just get back on the same tracks. It has been established that rights do not exist, but to what extent should the be violated? Once again, even a minimal government philosophy held by most libertarians is entirely inconsistent.

Of course, this problem can easily be avoided. All one would have to say is “Participating in government could be optional”. However, if it is optional, it is no longer government. Government is coercive, no matter what the size. If you believe that opting out should be allowed, then congratulations, you’re an anarchist.

On the other side, there are the pragmatic libertarians. They do not believe in principles, but rather the results. These minimal government folk may be immoral, but arguing from a pragmatic stancepoint is vastly more effective than arguing from a principle standpoint. These pragmatic libertarians are still statists, but of a lesser extent. They believe that the less government control over the economy, the more successful. They are very right, but their argument leaves no room for morality.

And lastly, the group not yet talked about. Those who believe in the free market.

These are the people who believe in a completely free market. As I mentioned before, this leads to anarchy. In a free market, the government cannot exist. However, due to the bad reputation and violent nature of so many anarchists, I refuse to be recognized as such.

I defend my viewpoint from both stances of results and principles.

As far as results, I am refering to the economic outcome of the free market. I won’t go into depth about the advantages of the free market in this article, but I’ll briefly explain some things.

The most basic driving force of the market is competition. This competition is involved in every single transfer in the market. Contrary to popular belief, the market is completely self-correcting, as long as there is no intervention. Competition is the reason. The free market has the solution to every possible issue. The only things that will be produced, are things which are in demand. If there is a surplus, the price will drop. If there is a shortage, the price will rise. There would be no chance for depressions which require systematic failure brought about by monetary policies. Employment would remain a result of production, not a goal itself. Smart businessmen would be rewarded for doing well, and poor businessmen would be punished for being bad businessen.

In every possible way, the free market is the best way to ensure that every transaction is mutually beneficial. In the future, I will write in much more detail.

Lastly, I will briefly talk about the free market from a stance of principles. When it comes to arguing from a stance of principles, it gets difficult. That’s because of two reasons: 1) People don’t care about principles 2) We all have different views of what principles should be upheld.

The free market has moral rights, not legal rights. There is no such thing as a legal right, because in order for legality to exist, right are violated. So I will just right this from a stance of free will. Whether two people have identical viewpoints on morality or not is irrelevant. Everyone would agree that we should allow free will. This way, people can exercise their free will and choose which principles to believe in. Without free will, we do not even have the choice to believe in different principles.

So this is where the non-aggression principle comes in. No one can use coercion against anyone or his possessions. This means no one can steal, kill, rape, or harm in any way. It basically means no coercion. My entire political and economic theory can be summed up by this one principle. No coercion means no state. No state means free market. This is why economics and politics are impossible to separate.

From a principle standpoint, no one can legally have their free will stopped by a coercive force. This assurance of free will is the only system (or lack of) which allows people to act morally. When free will is not present, neither is morality.

As for being pragmatic, the free market wins big. A free market will always be more successful than a controlled economy for an infinite number of reaons.

The Free Market wins in all areas. Now all we need is a new name. How about Free Marketeers? Lame? Yes. Better than being called an anarchist? Yes. Works for me.

Advertisements

Libertarian Case for Obama…defeated

Posted in Political Rant, Uncategorized with tags , , , , , on October 8, 2008 by lilburtonboy7489

So reasononline, a self-proclaimed “libertarian” magazine, published an article giving the case for why libertarians have reasons to support Obama. Anyone that understands libertarianism would know that voting for Obama violates every libertarian principle possible. So here are the points that were made:

“1. Sen. Obama has met at least one war he doesn’t love. His early pronouncements against the criminal enterprise in Iraq are enough reason, in themselves, to vote his way on November 4. Anyone paying the least attention must conclude that Lt. McCain’s “cause greater than self” always involves the Army, the Navy, and the United States Marines (not necessarily in that order).”

Of course Obama doesn’t support the war on Iraq, it’s not politically beneficial. However, Obama does support the war in Afghanistan, attacking Iran if they become “nuclear”, he made threatening statements towards Pakistan, is in favor of intervening in Sudan, and has no desire to withdraw troops fro the other 130 countries besides Iraq where we have troops. Don’t try and make him seem like a pacifist when it comes to foreign relations.

“2. The election of an African-American will end liberal racism as we know it. If an overwhelmingly white nation chooses a black leader, the Jesse Jacksons and other Mau Mauers for identity-based group preferences will be put out of business, as I explained here.”

Libertarians are individualists. “Race” is not a word spoken by libertarians. Anything that lumps individuals together into groups is not a libertarian ideal. Voting for someone based on their skin color to end racial discrimination is not something widely supported by the libertarian community.

“3. One word: Osmosis. You couldn’t live in Hyde Park or teach at the University of Chicago with the intellectual curiosity of a Barack Obama without gaining at least some understanding of libertarian economics. That can’t be said for most of the reactionary left-liberal wing of the Democratic Party dominating Capitol Hill. But I believe Obama is educable on free markets and I’m convinced that Democrats are ripe for a return in the next decade to the liberalism of our party’s founder, Thomas Jefferson (I made this case two years ago in my libertarian Democrat manifesto.)”

Sure Obama knows what Chicago School economics are. But he doesn’t believe in it or understand it. Obama strongly favors price floors, price ceilings, minimum wage laws, maximum regulations, high taxes, massive expansion of the federal government, the omnipotence of the federal reserve, inflation, welfare, and overall enormous redistribution of wealth. The only part of Chicago School economics that Obama understands is the part where the ends justify the means.

“4. Obama is the best hope for keeping government out of your bedroom and away from your body. As would any Democratic standard-bearer, the senator from Illinois represents the pro-choice, pro-gay rights side of the cultural divide. And he has at least made interesting soundings about reducing America’s status as the world’s number one jailer, much of which is tied to drug offenses and other crimes without victims. No libertarian can feel comfortable with a Republican candidate who doesn’t echo the personal choices demanded by his supposed hero, Barry Goldwater.”

Sure Obama is better than McCain on civil liberties, but that’s only in comparison to a strict statist. He would do nothing to keep the government out of our wallets, and with that wealth would force the federal government’s values on us by paying for programs he desires with our money. Taxation is the ultimate form of totalitarianism. Oh, did I mention he voted for the PATRIOT Act?

“5. The hidden hand did well this month punishing stupidity. But libertarians committed to free markets, not corporate oligarchs, must pause to consider the need for field-leveling regulation. More precisely, we should ask whether there was sufficient enforcement of reasonable restraints already in place. We need Republicans to stand against excessive tinkering in markets, of course. But my modest retirement fund may be safer with Democratic regulators in charge than rogue elephants. “

If you want to level the playing field, that’s God’s department, not the federal government. Everyone is born into situations that are “unfair”, but that happens by chance, not at the fault of anyone(except sometimes the federal government). So punishing other’s because chance has been hard on someone else is unjust. By leveling the playing field, you are simply trying to make others equal materialistically, and at the same time are treated people unequally. No libertarian supports regulations in the market because regulations rely on state coercion to enforce them. State coercion is not something that libertarians take a liking to. Voluntary transfer is the only way to ensure both liberty, justice, and result in mutual benefit for all. Leveling the playing field destroys voluntary transfers when you think of it from a teleological standpoint. We consider leveling the playing field ensuring that no one acts forcefully against you. Remember, there is a difference between treating people equally and trying to make them equal….

“6. R-E-S-P-E-C-T. Yes, we need to restore America’s reputation around the world. Anybody who’s traveled beyond the Atlantic and Pacific in the past eight years knows America needs a makeover. Whatever you think of Barack Obama—unless, like the mindless U!S!A! crowd, you don’t care what the world thinks—he will restore much of the goodwill we have lost when he raises his hand on January 20, 2009. That’s significant for libertarians who believe in the importance of the nation most committed to free markets and free minds—ours—leading by example. More-of-the-McSame in foreign policy is something we can’t afford.”

You want to restore our reputation? Then stop trying to police the world and having a president that declares preemptive wars on nations for your own cause. If you want us to have respect, we have to be humble in our foreign policy, not arrogant. Removing our troops from 130 countries is a good start. You could follow that up by ceasing to give billions of foreign aid to nations that use it to further oppress their citizens. How does it earn respect to threaten pakistan?

“7. Finally, Barack Obama is smart enough to follow the aspirations of the Gen Y, Millenials, and Echo Boomers next up on the American political stage. They want choices in both their bank accounts and their bedrooms. I don’t have much empirical evidence for that, though the college students I teach suggest that such libertarian leanings are on the rise. After all, a generation growing up with an explosion of mega-data-informed choices literally at its keyboard fingertips will resemble the self-sufficient, liberty-loving founders of the Agrarian Age more than they’ll resemble the social welfare liberals of the Industrial Era who gave us one-size-fits-all central authority mandates.”

I don’t even know what they are talking about here. If people want choices at all, they would know better than voting for Obama. The last thing a ‘liberty-lover’ would do is vote for this tool. Liberty is having the choice to not be effected by any policy implemented. The choice to opt out of government programs of all types is what ‘liberty lovers’ should want. The ability to be free of any type of coercion is what libertarians SHOULD want.

I have lost all respect for Reason. They are perverting libertarianism in order to become more mainstream. They clearly do not understand the basic fundamentals or the economics of libertarianism.

link to “The Libertarian Case for Obama”: http://www.reason.com/news/show/128902.html

What is “Patriotism”?

Posted in Political Rant, Uncategorized with tags , , , , , on August 26, 2008 by lilburtonboy7489

How many of you have been told for years that draft dodgers are unpatriotic liberals? I have been told that for years. I’ve also been told that those who don’t support the war don’t support the troops (So apparently the soldiers who don’t support the war don’t support themselves?), making them unpatriotic.  So let’s I must ask someone, what does it mean to be a patriot?

A lot of people have this idea that it means standing by your country no matter what direction they are going. They say that loyalty to your country makes you a patriot. Bullshit. Loyalty is not a virtue, it is a vice. Loyalty means that instead of picking the best action, you act off some feeling you might have. So now that we got that cleared up, without loyalty, what is patriotism?

How about just loving your country? Well, the country is made of people, so loving your country means loving the people in it. Last time I checked, people don’t exactly get along too well around here. Democrats and Republicans don’t work together to achieve results, they fight. However, it isn’t the fighting that yields good results through constructive criticism. It’s like watching a bunch of 6 year old little brats  argue over who tipped over the cookie jar. There isn’t a whole lot of love for one another, we’re more divided than ever.

So what’s left? What is patriotism? I’ll tell you. The greatest civil duty to your country is to be constantly looking for errors. There is no greater patriotism than being critical of every decision made by our leaders. We should be united through the allowance of our diverse opinions. Our freedom of expression and individuality is the one thing can can truly unite us. Patriotism is nothing more than the appreciation of our differences and loving our country for us being allowed these differences. If you disagree with a war, then by all means, please protest. If you disagree with it and there’s a draft, then you shouldn’t have to be a resource of the state, run away. That isn’t unpatriotic, it’s freedom of choice. This freedom of choice is what breeds patriotism.

And remember, blind patriotism is worse than being unpatriotic. I love the principles that America used to stand for. However, when our freedoms started being taken, we started expanding our empire, and are forced into involuntary servitude through taxation, the patriotism dies in my heart.

Mentally retarded or teenage girl?

Posted in Rant, Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , , on July 1, 2008 by lilburtonboy7489

I lost hope in America long ago. However, I just recieved a friend request on Facebook from some random girl, so naturally I accepted it. After about 3 seconds, I looked at her personal information. It went something like this:

Personal Info

Activities:
Interests:
Favorite Music:
Favorite TV Shows:
Favorite Movies:
Favorite Books:

Notice how besides the given Facebook categories, almost every word is spelled wrong. Out of 26 real words that she typed, 6 words were completely wrong. She used 3 words that are popular slang words typically only used by jocks, retards, 2nd graders, and well….girls.

Since I am not a complete jackass, I won’t give Ashley’s full name. After taking a look at her profile, I looked at a few more. Here’s another worth looking at:

Personal Info

Activities:
Interests:
Favorite Music:
Favorite TV Shows:
Favorite Movies:
Favorite Books:

Not quite as bad, but still disappointing. Notice the patterns if you would. The “Activities” and “Interests” usually are similarly heart-breaking. Sports, partying, texting, idking, and booyz are usually part of the mixture. When texting becomes a noted activity or interest, a red flag should go up right away. The use of “umm….” is also rather disturbing. That is a word that bad public speakers use when they are nervous. I use the word often when speaking. However, the glory of typing is that you can think BEFORE you give your thoughts. Using “umm..” as a filler while typing isn’t cute, it’s basically you saying: “hey booooyz, i’m such an idiot, please rape me 😀 lol”.

Notice the music. These people don’t just have a type of music they listen to, they like everything. Liking everything just means you don’t have any preference. Usually rap or hip-hop are in there, instantly showing how dumb they are, accompanied by the genre that hates rap: Country. “I like to listen to rap which is mumbling based on the streets, but at the same time I like to feel like a inbred, redneck, racist that supports out troops!” I’ll assume that’s what these people think.

Now, television shows: “Laguna Beach, next”, and “I dont watch much TV…just mtv”……..enough said.

Favorite Movies: “OMG alote…” and “I LOVE MOVIES!!..basically anything”. Again, 2 made-up words and no preference.

Next, is the category of “Favorite Books”. This one is my favorite. Please look at their answers. “NONE…” and “books?!?!?”. Well, I’m glad that they do not know what books are. It’s not like they are old enough to read yet. OH!!, Wait! What’s that? They graduate high school in 1 year?? That’s right. Those of you who think that it’s not big deal because they are young, you’re wrong. Both of these girls drive cars. They are at the point where they should be practicing cooking and cleaning. Age is no excuse for this.

This is supposed to be a political blog, so I should probably tie this into politics. The point of this article was to show the current condition of our youth. I picked girls just for fun, but guys are not any better. Our youth are borderline retarded, and yet in 1-2 years, these are the people that will be voting. My point of this rant is this: American democracy has failed! At least little Iraqi terrorists know enough to believe in SOMETHING. American youth will be and are already the destruction of this nation.

Next, I will be writing about an experience I had at work today talking with men and women in their 40s. It will be further proof that democracy has failed.