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.


The only solution to the financial crisis

Posted in Political Rant with tags , , , , , , on November 24, 2008 by lilburtonboy7489

We are in a credit crisis. Turn on the tv, and all you will hear is how there just isn’t enoug money to go around. On top of that, you have something even more intolerable than lack of fiat money: Banks are acting responsible!

Where do they get the nerve to do something like this when the free market has caused all of this chaos. There is only one obvious solution to this crisis, and it must be done right away.

We have to legalize counterfeiting.

Instead of printing money, which takes forever to distribute, just let us print our own. This way, the government won’t have to worry about stimulus checks, bailouts, responsible banks, or anything. Let us just print our own fortunes so that we can have all the credit we need…and a little extra.

Problem solved. Nobel prize please….

This is why America is so much better than Iraq.

Posted in Political Rant with tags , , , , , , on November 11, 2008 by lilburtonboy7489

In our democracy, we got to choose between 2 candidates.

Iraq’s citizens only got 1 choice.

America- 1

Iraq- 0

The Death of Individualism…Obama’s Required Community Service

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

Ignore the idiot who made the video. Just listen to Obama.

Self sacrifice is not self sacrifice when it is forced. Remember that. It is slavery.

It’s no secret that Obama despises the concept of individualism. The very though of having someone being able to choose his own lifestyle is considered immoral to him. He is a strong believer that we should be forced to sacrifice our own desires in order to contribute to the greater good. This concept of sacrifice for a greater good is an excellent idea, as long as it’s voluntary. However, to force us to participate in a system which may have vastly different values is nothing short of a totalitarian regime.

In Obama’s pathetic National Service Plan, he explains in full detail how we will be used as resources ready to be harvested for the state. Of course, being forced to contribute to this greater good (whatever the will of the state is), has to start young. This way young kids will grow up believing that they should put the will of the state before they live for themselves. It’s a way of eroding the very concept of free will.

So in order to do this, Obama will require all middle school students to perform 50 hours of mandatory community service, and another 50 in high school . At first, this may not be liked by young kids. However, by the time they graduate and go off to college, they will be very used to it. That’s a good thing, because Obama also will be requiring college students to perform 100 hours of community service by the time they graduate.

Involuntary servitude in middle school. Nice.

Apparently Obama does not favor the 13th amendment.

“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”

Involuntary servitude is slavery. So obviously Obama opposes involuntary servitude. Or does he?

Is being forced to give 33% of your income to the state involuntary servitude? I would say yes. How about being forced at the age of 13 to perform community service.

Hm…..perhaps Obama is in favor of slavery after all….

Here’s the link to Obama’s National Service Plan Fact Sheet.


Bring on the change!

Posted in Political Rant with tags , , , , , , , on November 5, 2008 by lilburtonboy7489

Everyone rejoice! The election season is over with! That means that we no longer have to deal with this:

Now that Jesus is running the country, everything will be fine (Watch the video to see what this means). In the coming months, we will see what the Chosen One will bring to the table. I am hoping for lots of change and not more of the same.

I expect lots of radical changes to be made. These changes include:

1) I expect that we will get out of Iraq, and move our troops into Afghanistan, Sudan, and eventually Iran. Then I expect we will keep all of our established bases in over 100 countries.

2) I expect a decrease in my income tax by 1-2%, an increase in national debt by 30%, an increase in unemployment due to higher taxes on the rich (those making over 250K, or is it 150K?), massive inflation, all government controlled banks, and massive decrease in overall investments.

3) I expect that we will have alternative energy sources in 10-20 years.

4) I expect that innocent American citizens will continue to be spied on, legally. (It’s legal now: Thanks Obama for voting for HR 6304!)

5) I expect that police brutality will continue. After all, if a police force is being naughty, there’s aren’t many competitors to keep them in line.

6) I expect that the inflation rate will continue to be higher than the savings interest rate.

7) I expect that the state will continue to force us to give our money to the government for retirement rather than invest it so that it keeps up with inflation.

8) I expect that we will be paying for more luxury vacations for CEOs of multi-billion dollar corporations.

9) I expect that every poor decision the government makes will be blamed on the free market and deregulation.

10) Lastly, I expect that our system will remain unchanged so that we will continue to run through this routine every four years.

Wow, such radical change. What would we have done with 4 more years of the same?

Paul Krugman wins nobel prize in economics….God help us

Posted in Political Rant with tags , , , , , on October 15, 2008 by lilburtonboy7489

Last year, Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize. As pissed off as I was, I just tried to ignore it. Besides, everyone knows that fruitcake is a joke. But this year, Paul Krugman won the Nobel Prize in economics. This is not so funny. It isn’t funny because people will actually think this guy deserves it. No one actually though Gore deserved it, they knew it was ridiculous. But now, people are actually going to think Paul Krugman knows what he’s talking about. Not good.

Krugman is not an economist. In order to be an economics, you must acknowledge the most basic laws of supply and demand. You must acknowledge that printing money results in inflation. You must acknowledge that price floors and price ceilings are harmful to the market. And most of all, you must understand how a central bank works. Paul Krugman does not know any of this.

He is a political tool. He is a write for the New York Times, and consistently supports socialist policies.  In an article he wrote for “Slate”, he distorts the Austrian School theory of the business cycle. He uses immature analogies, and attempts to use witty dialogue as opposed to intelligence. He explains that the “bust” that occurs after an economic “boom” is payback for people’s evil deeds according to Austrian school economics.

Anyone who actually understands Austrian school economics knows this is absurd. Instead, they say booms of America, were artificial. The economic boom of the 1920’s was followed by the stock market crashing and eventually the depression. The boom of the 1990’s was followed by the recent stock market crash, and soon to be depression. These enormous fluctuation is the market happen because the booms are artificial from the beginning.

When the central bank cuts interest rates, rather than banks cutting them to the real market level, people borrow more. The massive increase in borrowing results in malinvestment, overinvestment, overproduction, and illiquid assets. The current housing crisis is the perfect example. The market is not as it appears, it is in fact, artificial. People borrow more when the interest rates are artificially low, and their poor decisions usually leave them in a hole.

Next thing you know, people are in big trouble. Right now, the banks are relying on the central bank. The problem is that it has no money. Paul Krugman writes:

The natural thing to do, then – and the solution adopted in many previous financial crises – is to deal with the problem of inadequate financial capital by having governments provide financial institutions with more capital in return for a share of ownership.”

Wow. That sounds great. Use taxpayer dollars to fix the fed’s mistake. OH wait, there’s another problem…THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO MONEY!!!!

How exactly do you inject large amounts of credit into the system when you have no money? Simple, you print it. Either Krugman does not realize that the government is broke, or he knows and is fine with the printing of trillions of dollars. If he doesn’t know that the government is broke, he should not be allowed to live. Natural selection should take it’s course. If he’s fine with printing money, then once again, let natural selection take it’s course on this idiot.

No, Paul Krugman knows. But apparently, he sees no problem with hyperinflation and the dilution of our dollar. He would rather mock Austrian economics which he does not even understand, than actually have any intelligent input on the current situation. This man does not understand economics. That’s because he is not an economist. He is a political tool.

Giving him an award which was once given to people such as Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman is blasphemy. I am truly happy that these men are not alive to see this abomination to the study of economics. If a man that ignores basic economic laws can be the receipient of this once prestigious award…God help us.

Gamespot- “Intolerance will not be tolerated!!!” (Suspended Again)

Posted in Rant with tags , , , , on October 13, 2008 by lilburtonboy7489

I do quite a bit of posting on Gamespot Forums. If you don’t know what Gamespot is, it’s a video game website run by complete jackasses who fire people for giving shitty games shitty reviews…..that is when the shitty game pays Gamespot money.

But that’s not the point. They have forums on there where people talk about all kinds of things. A bunch of nerds pretend they know something about topics like religion, economics, politics, philosophy, music, and life in general. It’s cute really. But I just got suspended…again. This time it’s for 2 weeks! That’s a really long suspension. So what did I do to get suspended? Must be really bad right?

I wrote this: “Atheism is really, really, really dumb…”

“think about it. no one can PROVE God exists, and no one can PROVE he doesn’t. sure, go ahead and say you don’t think God exists, but you can’t say that you know that. simple as that. you don’t know. the possibility is always there.

agnosticism makes much more sense…”

Wow, I’m sorry i raped your virgin ears. I can see why this would be somewhat bad if I said atheists are dumb, but I was referring to a concept, not person. So obviously Gamespot is unbelievably strict about posting. So how do they explain these topics which were allowed:

“Christianity is the definition of Hypocriticism.”

“I can’t take this brainwashing cult know as christianity no longer….”

“Does Christianity use fear tactics?”

“christianity and its history of lies/bullcrap (dont start a religious debate!!)”

“Christianity created Global Warming”

“Christianity trial: 2,000 years of wrongdoings”

“Christianity is fake (Proof inside)”

“Christianity is corrupting the minds of the youth”

“Christianity is dumb….imo”

Hmmmmm….Magically, none of these users were suspended, and the topics were allowed to stay up. Mine was locked instantly. Was my thread worse than these. I don’t think so. I was just pointing something out, no hatred or attacks on anyone. Fuck you Gamespot.