hayek's road to serfdom in 5 minutes

why can't i find a woman like this?

paedophiles enslave children - violation of nap?

imagine being born to a paedophile. every day of your childhood you are used for their pleasure. you are helpless and completely controlled

the root words of paedophilia break down to child love, though that is not how the word is usually used today. so imagine that there is no (direct) sexual nature to the relationship - the love is more "nurturing"

so begins my internal rants - what are the proper motivations for reproduction? to answer this question, we must examine what it means to bring a person into existence. for now we might say that reproduction is enabling matter to be formed in our own image (at least partially our own image - cloning might be a better term for completely in our own image). now, we would only rightfully do this because it would make us happier. in order to maintain the nap it must also be a win for the child (or benign). however, we cannot truly say that we can empathize with another - we may try, but ultimately we see things through our own eyes - so even if we believe someone to be happy, they may not be. in the same manner, the things that make us happy may not make the offspring happy. finally, even if we knew what would make the new life happy, we are neither prescient enough to determine if those conditions will be satisfied, nor omnipotent enough to ensure they will be.

but misery loves company. so depriving myself of a childs' life, even if i'm miserable (which might be inherited by the kid) might be construed as aggression against self - i can take an action to relieve my misery but i don't. further, it only takes a short period of weakness to succumb to loneliness and conceive a being with the same flaw

but i'm ranting. read Rothbard and listen to Molyneux for more

indiana jones and the secrets of the temple

i was watching raiders last night and had an epiphany: the ark represents money printing and the final scenes are an allegory transposing money power and religious power. i won't go into every weird detail, but, 'member weimar?

when the ark is opened, it represents the unleashing of germany's inflation in wwii. "it's beautiful". but immediately some random, young, soldiers are killed, representing the loss of faith in the mark, and possibly the initiation of aggressions. indiana and marion close their eyes, suggesting that if the americans ignore central banking they will be ok (veiled threat?). then what was unleashed from the ark gets out of hand and destroys everyone except the protagonists who wilfully ignore it. later, the ark is locked away - indicating that the US shows restraint from using money creation after wwii

ps - note that the cameras get zapped, too; representing the death of nazi propaganda

much cred to the secret of oz

there's no way to rule innocent men

Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed? ...We want them broken... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt.

- Ayn Rand

reddit via braincrave reminded me of it, and i thought i'd share here

inheritance, production, game theory

i don't have this fully worked out but wanted to rant. let's say production isn't as valuable/necessary etc as some (me) would like to think. let's say that our fore-fathers were hyper-productive and put away stores of every imaginable good for generations to come. in that case, inheritance becomes much more ... interesting for lack of a better word

you will never be able to change atoms into an arrangement than is more optimal than their current arrangement, and there is already enough of anything you could conceive of. since your parents controlled all capital before you (and your siblings) were born, they are the rightful distributors of that property. they may choose to not will you anything, and your (even exceptional) productive capacity is worthless

we are of course on some continuum between the two. however, as we age, we have both accumulated more savings (capital) and thus need to produce less. because there are others who want our savings, and entropy (of capital) would suggest that theft becomes more thermodynamically favourable (for them), we encounter parties who address us with win/lose. in other words - similar distribution of raw materials (not finished goods) would tend to favour win/win trade, while dissimilar (accumulation) of finished goods would favour win/lose. and this may explain why muhammad went from an inclusive spiritual man early in life to a warlord later. and why when we're young we are encouraged to share and often cooperate while the motto of the old is, "get off my lawn!"

revolutionary businesses, loss of productive capacity, collectivist dogma

there has been a lot of hype about monetary policy and the housing bubble as to what has caused our troubles. and while it never hurts to blame keynesian policy, there are other culprits that have exacerbated our decline

know what amazon, eBay, and wallmart have in common? revolutionary business plans that reduce inventory and distribution costs. a lot of those mom and pop stores that are failing are based on outdated business models. why drive to the local electronics store that has a small, old, inventory when the latest version of exactly what you want is only a google search away? want to know what killed mainstream - it wasn't wall street, it was the interweb

then we got the problem of no longer producing anything. i recently heard a speculative assertion that one of the reasons the US was so strong after WWII was that we were the only country whose manufacturing base hadn't been bombed back to the stone age. so unless we plan on bombing china for the first time, and germany and japan again; we're going to need to learn to compete fairly - by producing quality products. right now we're having our hats handed to us

but why compete when the nanny state will take care of us if we fail? the collectivist security net is making it very hard for viable businesses to ... remain viable. that mom and pop store that got hit by those revolutionary business models now needs to pay for your health insurance and that may be the straw that breaks its back

my joel smolen story

a while back i decided to check out the local libertarian party. i met joel smolen there. seems like an ok guy. not very politiciany, which is probably good. i offered to pay for a beer he was ordering. he said, no, he considered that a problem with the campaign finance rules. i consider that highly ethical. and that's something i look for in a candidate. if you're going to vote, please vote for smolen

trends, self-fulfilling prophecies, and palladium

i made a suggestion a while back that, while gold nominal value is increasing, there is no reason that it needs to be the currency. i then mentioned palladium. palladium recently had a rally

so far as i can tell, people who have a lot of (or print) the fiat currency are hedging their bets by buying what may become the next currency. but the reality is that currency is a convenience over barter. so they would need to corner the market on every possible exchange medium, which further hastens the fall of the fiat currency

but this got me thinking about trends and self-fulfilling prophecies. 'member that scene in the matrix where the oracle predicts that neo will break the vase? well, we cannot ignore the act of prophesy contributing to the future. so a prophet can only make accurate predictions that can exist with with that outcome. and they also influence outcome. by predicting that fiat currencies will crash and gold will be used as currency, it increases the probability that fiat currencies will crash and that gold values will increase

a prophet cannot discount the act of prophesy. an accurate prophet can only predict things that will happen regardless of the prophecy, that will occur despite the prophecy, or that will occur, at least in part because of the prophecy. but it is unlikely that a (true) prophet will be very accurate because, realizing their influence on future events, they would change their prophecies to affect outcome

are we a war-like people?

'member the baby boomers. big increase in population right after ww2. I was born after vietnam and believe there was a bulge there. we've been at war in iraq and afghanistan for 8 years or so, and even if it's not officially over, it's starting to feel over. and babies are popping out. i have 3 friends who are themselves or their wives are prego. so my question is - is the war/victory-defeat cycle ingrained into us and now part of our collective (ugh) reproductive cycle?

hijacking the message

one of the phenomenons of the modern age is the readiness those in power will take a message or movement and co-opt it to their ends. i mean - how much money has hollywood made on rebel movies? look at how the environmental movement has been used to justify taxes (gas, carbon) and intrusion into your privacy (in frisco they're going through your garbage to make sure you're recycling and composting). so the question is - how will/can the freedom message/tea party movement be corrupted?

to war: a brief dialog

np: neo-con politician
ne: neo-con "economist"

np: hey. we want to go to war. how do we finance it?

ne: blow a bubble. maybe in housing - that way both the lender and the borrower will finance our war. we do it all the time - we blew a tech bubble for clinton. we can pull in fannie and freddie. and use derivatives to mortgage just about everything. since a lot of people in the world still trust the US and the dollar, they will trust that our contracts are good. and we won't print money early, like nations in the past - keeping our economic partners (even if they're not our force partners) on board. then when we reach a good point we'll just print a lot of money and buy all those assets back. it might be tough on some of our bankers who get caught up in the leverage schemes, so be sure to promise them big bonuses in the end

np: sounds good, when can we start?

ne: we'll get the ninja liar loans started right away. but remember to publicly scorn if not ruin anyone who starts asking questions

np: will do - we're good at that

good artists immitate

i think stef and i are on the same page. him me

read his if you want to be a good parent. mine if you want to be pissed off

my ballot

wanted to share a few things about my voting. i voted for Libertarian candidates by default to send a message. some notable exceptions: i voted for nightengale for gov, cuz i know the Libertarian candidate is a nut job; i would have voted for john dennis if i could have (please, please look into him if you're in san francisco - he's a great option over pelosi). if you're in cali's 6th (marin) please consider smolen. i voted to end pot prohibition, and anything that lowered my taxes. if i hadn't done enough research on a measure or didn't know the candidates (and there was no Libertarian candidate - or non-partisan position) i didn't vote

i'm a bit dissolution with voting, but it may still be worth something

cheyenne oath keeper if branch

if("oath keeper" affiliation is considered a good reason by gov to take a child) {

// we have a conflict between freedom of association and gov
// we have a problem
}
else {

// oath keeper affiliation is not considered a good reason by gov to take child
// but was on affidavit
// t.f. gov is incompetent in its research/documentation/justifications for taking children
// since the gov should have all i's dotted and t's crossed before taking your children
// we have a problem
}


in other words - in any case, we have a problem

neo-con vader

liberals want us to treat obama like a violent girlie retard

it's 1987. i'm 12 years old, practicing my jump shot. the neighborhood hottie is talking to me

"my brother thinks the Celtics are gonna win the finals this year"
"your brother's a retard, the Lakers are gonna win"

you see, my friends and i called each other retarded. i didn't call my parents retarded because they would punish me. if i called my sister retarded i got a smack on the head from my dad with, "don't call girls retarded"

anyway, she ran away crying. her brother was mentally handicapped; down syndrome i think. he was 16

when i got home later my liberal mother was waiting. "you will treat him like a friend". but i couldn't, because i called my friends "retard". what she meant was, i needed to treat him special, like a girl. i didn't get dinner that night

i think the logic goes something like this: because he is incompetent but protected, and you are not incompetent nor protected, you are obligated to mask his incompetence so we can pretend to ignore it. it's like communism or something

another thing you should know, was that i was supposed to let girls beat on me. my sister could hit me whenever she wanted, but if i hit back i got punished: "don't hit girls". my sister used to punch me a lot. i finally learned to block her punches with my elbows, but i'd even get in trouble for that sometimes, too

anyway, the next day the brother comes at me. so i'm supposed to let him beat me, right? i let him get me into a headlock, but when he went to smash my face i ran away. not sure whether i hadn't done something wrong, again, i didn't tell anyone

that night mom asks, "i heard you let that boy beat on you. why'd you do that?". i looked at her for a moment. "isn't that what you wanted?". she doesn't respond

fast forward to 2008. she thinks i'm a democrat 'cause she hears me ripping into Bush every chance i get. she's so progressive to vote for Obama. "yes we can". she's loyal and part of the enlightened. Oprah will smile on her

i can't stand it and finally tell her i won't be voting for him. if you look back at my blog posts from that time, you can get the details, but i end with, "i think that if obama is elected it will be bad for me and bad for the country in general"

she thought for a moment, "do you remember that time you let that boy beat on you?"

"why" trumps might

in stephan's latest vlog he argues for philosophy over force. i've written "around" this before - i want to take it a step further: philosophy trumps force. "why" is a great power in human relations - we ask it constantly when we're young, and often only stop when authority forces us a that delicate age. however, when you try to beat "why" with force you become less powerful. so answers containing the ring of truth will trump violence when applied correctly - you cannot stop a truthful message with violence. violence is actually one of the most costly, least effective powers in the world, and i have little doubt that those who rely on it will soon find that out

switching gears slightly - imo, the only reason the fiat dollar still has power is because violence is being used to enforce its use. as the dollar looses strength, the ability to apply force will decrease and the dollar will fold. unlike many, i doubt gold will take its place. maybe for international trade. silver might be used in the US, though platinum and palladium are both viable.

natural leadership

Doug French discusses natural leadership



Rothbard on the Fed (from Schiff's site)

The Audacity of Pants

what does freedom mean to you?

i had two main reasons for going to keene recently

1. to find out what freedom meant to them


2. to understand their principles/values/priorities

for some, freedom meant smoking pot. for others, the freedom of religion. for still others, it meant the opportunity to build a life - they were fleeing oppressive states

a few new ideas presented themselves

• volunteer society


• what do you (does the state) have to do to prevent someone from doing something?


• big tent freedom (strategy of inclusiveness)

here are some more that i already valued

• non aggression principle


• self ownership


• non-obligation (Rand/Objectivism vs communism "from each")


• gun in the room (Stefan Molyneux)


• the immorality of victimless crimes


• morality of self-defense

i recommend that you spend some time researching the above to solidify your principles/values (ala Glen Beck). note that there may be an act (ex freedom to practice your specific religion) that may be abstracted to a more generic idea (freedom of religion/expression/association/non aggression)

free keene!

I am writing this post from Keene, New Hampshire. For those of you who don't know, Keene is the heart of "Free Keene" a movement to create a society on the libertarian philosophy of volunteerism. It is loosely related to the "free state project" which has libertarian roots, and is strengthened by the state's official motto: "live free or die".

Like most movements, there is a passionate core here, and hangers on who are more interested in the social aspects. But a few examples:

• every night they perform civil disobedience by openly smoking marijuana in the town square
  




• when challenged by the police the movement gained so much strength that they ended up smoking the plant in the police station
  




• when false flag anarchists defaced a local church activists (with a majority of atheists!) repainted the building


• they openly carry firearms on occasion, though all I met were dedicated to non-violent solutions


• they like to enjoy life by co-ordinating social events like movie nights and taking the group to Halloween events


• they have found ways for people to participate as they like - civil disobedience for some, active politics for others

yes we koran

this would be a funny text to a political cartoon with obama and his core (radical) supporters as the image - talking about the ground zero mosque, burning, etc

is the president still commander in chief?

i'm wondering if the military is still under control of the politicians, or if they've gone rogue and there's a cover up. i got a sense when obama increased troops in afghanistan, that it might not have been a willing act. now that we've pulled out of iraq, except that we haven't - does the source of the double talk originate from politicians who want to be in the war but also want to get re-elected, or is it from the military-industrial complex that wants to placate the public through their controlled talking heads?

reminds me of rome - beware the visigoths!

the oil standard, nuclear energy, and iran

• the us has had a pseudo oil backed currency




• charge whatever you want, but only take dollars




• iran has recently accepted other currencies for its oil


• this is a threat to dollar stability, and may be the last straw before collapse


• nuclear energy is scary because of nuclear bombs, but it's also a way for iran to maintain its independence


• globalists don't like independence

aliens, lots and lots of aliens. and salt

i am a big fan of alternative media. however, it exists, by definition, on the fringe; and then there exist fringe elements beyond that. when individuals start looking beyond mainstream media, they may not be prepared with the filters necessary to deal with the the fringier elements. please, take everything with a grain of salt ... or even two

the liberty movement: measured in degrees

philosophy can be perceived as a condition of absolutes: e.g. you are free or you are not free. however, reality works in the grey - you are somewhat free, but you could me more free. the overwhelming sense i get is that people are not as free as they would like to be, and they're willing to do something about it. so let us use the idea of freedom as the beacon towards which we make progress, knowing that we may not win every battle on the way. remember to enjoy the journey as well as the destination

spare some freedom, mister?

hey, mister ... mister - got any freedom? we ran out. i ... i think we shipped it somewhere. i remember something about the '80's where we were exporting it everywhere, but our supply ran out - got dilluted. I've got lcd's, sports cars, computers, ipods - wanna trade for freedom?

is there some in mexico still? or thailand? i heard they were trying to raise some in iceland. oh, if only i could get to iceland!

they said the terrorists wanted to take it away. and i guess they did

we're starving here! can't i be free for just a night. just in my bed tonight? or in the shower? can i be free in the shower? - or does the man need to keep me safe from terrorists in there, too?

big ole mess of conspiracy

i just can't help myself - this is pure conjecture

so, "we"'ve got all these south american countries mad at "us". one of them had a dispute with britain not long ago about some islands. russia went through the panama canal for the first time in a long time early in the obama administration, no one in the middle east has reason to be happy with us - especially iran who can do something about it (and they're pretty close with russia and china).

i'm just guessing deepwater horizon wasn't an accident. and if it wasn't an accident, what would i do as pres? send some military (coast guard) down there to protect the remaining oil rigs and pay bp for damages so they don't bail - and that sounds like what they've done privately if not publicly. i've heard that the us gov doesn't admit attacks unless it's beyond cover up, so you try to find an internal fall guy to distract the public - and it makes sense - look at what 911 did to the airlines. you think people are more likely to continue working in the gulf if they know chavez has submarines and torpedoes? remember, a s. korea vessel recently got hit by one. and i remember an article about china testing advanced (aka stealth) submarines

Housing Market Manipulation

RUMOR ALERT

I have a source that has reconfirmed that the banks are holding large inventories of houses that they will not release until later this summer. This is despite the tax credits that were designed to prop house prices, and now housing sales have dropped 33%.

The geo-libertarian part of me says we need to raise taxes on idle resources, while the capitalist part of me says the banks can do what they want with their property. Since the banks are using (my/our) tax dollars to remain solvent (theft), I say take back the land. Tit for tat (with forgiveness)

individuals collectively going galt

the problem with leaders is, they're easy to pick off (a.k.a assassinate, if only the character type). imo, the latest move in gold is a collective vote of no confidence in our current system of government and banking. i think we will see more like this. uncle joe will buy an extra weeks worth of food ... just in case there's a run. aunt mary will spend another few minutes chatting up the neighbor about tea party or libertarian candidates. your buddy dave will start fixing cars on the weekend and accept any kind of barter item instead of putting in extra hours at his 9 to 5. your friend sherry will start a pre-school where each parent spends a day teaching - and it will morph into a private school. Occasionally the "authorities" will find out, and some will feign ignorance, but it will become more and more obvious that the probability of getting caught and punished is a good trade-off for the profit of working outside the system. and as more defect, the easier it will be to defect. and then maybe, finally, i'll sack up and defect

The Future of Education

A few education predictions. In the future, I believe students will be tested, these tests will be evaluated, and the students will be delivered custom content tapered to their personal strengths and weaknesses. This will likely all be automated. No longer will a student listen to a lecture on content that is below or above their level; or similarly be tasked with busy work.

I don't know what will happen to students who are above or below average. If the past holds any clues, though, those behind will receive special encouragement, while those ahead will be punished by the jealous. Ideally though, those ahead could pursue their own interests, skip ahead, or start materially benefiting from their productive capacity.

on location

here's a prediction/recommendation: as we're designing the next phase of human interaction (government, economics, etc) we can/will leverage technology to allow us to voluntarily participate in the communities we want without the restrictions of location. if we want to participate in a democratic commune, there will be an app for that. instead of marching on washington, or protesting outside city hall, we'll just update our preferences, and change our friends or groups that we're interested in - facebook style

Quarantine the KillBots

Stefan discusses the problem of returning soldiers. He has little faith in the idea of "swords to ploughshares". In an ideal world, we would rehabilitate everyone. Second best, we could leave parts of the world where they can express their destructive programming without hurting others. This is one of the reasons I have suggested that Afghanistan become an independent colony. For those who nature and/or nurture have deemed warlike, we can help them fulfill their calling without endangering others, by sponsoring them to go to "war regions". This would be a modern day gladiator, but more so. Further, we should expand professional sports - so that we create a path from killing people, to injuring your competitor, to causing pain in your competitor, to competing with someone for mutual fitness, etc. The problem is, of course, moving from win/lose to win/win; without diminishing our effectiveness at deflecting and disabling win/lose attacks.

love thine enemy

i am no fan of Obama's. but this article helped to surface some ideas that have been rattling around in my noggin.

• even if he wanted to end the war, he is/was going against entrenched parties. parties who are trained to defeat their opponents


• even if he wanted to fix the economy, he is/was going against his own party's socialist and revolutionary leanings


• even if he wanted to have a lively public debate, he's fighting a journalist system that is based on access and sensationalism

what i'm getting at is: there's stuff going on behind the scenes that by its nature, keeps us citizens from accurately evaluating our representatives. i hope he brings a sensible end to the middle east conflicts. i still like my idea of "independent colonies"

California Ballot

I used to be very protective about my voting record, but I've decided that the more people who let their votes be known, with rationale, the more likely the democratic process will help secure our freedoms. I chose to receive a Republican ballot this time as California allows non-declared voters to choose each election. I've chosen Democratic primary ballots in the past, fyi

Governor: Naritelli
rationale: tea party candidate, freedom lover, capitalist
note: switched from Whitman due to Goldman ties and various marginally ethical behavior

Lieutenant Gov: Scott L. Levitt
rationale: best of the worst, limited gov, private background, deregulation, good tax stance

Secretary of State: Orly Taitz
rationale: the woman's on a mission - she has a right to question Obama's legitimacy but has been daemonized; a statement by the voters can help legitimize our attempts to hold gov feet to the flame

Controller: David Evans
rationale: limited gov, solid financial background

Treasurer: abstain
rationale: only one candidate, don't want to suggest a mandate

Attorney General: John Eastman
rationale: liberty candidate, honest face (sometimes that holds), best of the worst

Insurance Commissioner: abstain
rationale: Brian Fitzgerald does not appear to be a valid candidate, therefore, one candidate and don't want to suggest a mandate

Equalization: abstain
rationale: Rae Williams does not appear to be a valid candidate

US Senator: Tom Campbell
rationale: studied under Friedman, was one candidate who didn't make it on Hannity

Representative: abstain
rationale: only one valid - will probably vote for Joel Smolen anyway

State Assembly: abstain
rationale: one candidate

Superior Court Judge, Office 3: Haakenson
rationale: Burton is a dipshit, Haakenson seems cool - wish I coulda found his decision record

Superintendent of Public Instruction: Gloria Romero
rationale: supports charter schools (as close to private as we're going to get for now)

Superintendent of Schools: abstain
rationale: one

Assessor-Recorder-County Clerk: Benson
rationale: this was tough. could have gone to Raful. didn't like scott's union ties

Sheriff-Coroner: Doyle
rationale: Doyle seems to be doing an OK job, and imo sheriff experience is more important than coroner experience. Sorry Ken

Prop 13 - seismic retrofit could raise your taxes: no
rationale: taxes bad, retrofit good

Prop 14 - primary over general: no
rationale: too limiting, may solidify donkey-phant hegemony

Prop 15 - political campaign mess: no
rationale: need cap on individual and total contributions, not obscure rules and tax dollars

Prop 16 - PG&E protection act: no
rationale: tough one, but this makes it too hard for officials to act in the interest of (isolated) consumers/taxpayers. I would like to see the gov out of the electric business, though

Prop 17 - drivers history of insurance companies: no
rationale: we need to remove the liability insurance law, not strengthen the companies who profit from it

Fed Moving Gold

RUMOR ALERT

I have relatively reliable information that much of the gold traditionally stored in Fed vaults (at least the NY Fed) has been moved to "undisclosed locations"

I'm hoping that once they move their (hopefully rightfully earned) assets out of the US they'll be less opposed to discontinuing their opperations here. This could turn out to be a win/win - they get out with a premium and the people get their freedom back

did newsome just secede from the union?

is california taking the lead towards the goal the red states have proposed? San Francisco government is no longer travelling to Arizona, and a full boycott has been proposed (i think, I'm being lazy). Arnold printed money (IOUs). What's next? Will we see more "city states" join a "light secession"?

the gse wash

now that we have all the financial reform and fraud talk, here's an angle i'd like to see get some attention. i'm wondering if anyone did the following:

• sell an alt-a (mortgage or bundle) to a GSE


• short the alt-a


• (optional) buy the gov backed GSE product

this would guarantee profit on both sides, generate demand, and satisfy things like the GSE mandates (CRI)

nudge towards freedom?

I've been thinking about game theory again. While Cass Sunstein has been getting heat lately, I'm wondering if we can't use the nudge technique towards libertarian ends.

What I'm really looking for is a sort of win/win, easy way out, slippery slope to freedom strategy/plan that ideally all freedom lovers could participate in, no one would suffer, the guilty or somewhat guilty could redeem themselves; and it would all be lolly pops and sunshine forever

LEAVE IRAN ALONE

Ron Paul gets it right again

instead of VAT, GAT?

instead of a value added tax, can we have a government abuse tax? Any time the government bails out a bank, or an auto manufacturer ... or provides any corporate welfare in general - tax that company's product(s) to recoup twice what the government put in. i mean, since when does the mafia lend to Sam and squeeze Joe - squeeze Sam, he's your mark!

Better yet, tax all recipients of government spending 101% at the transaction (get it? - they wouldn't)

William K. Black is my Hero

from http://www.dailypaul.com/node/132415

you MUST listen to stefbot

same guy who had the incite about why minarchies fail

youtube channel

child abuse and ideology = bomb in the brain

will minarchy always fail?

this guy thinks that the productive capacity of a free market necessarily leads to government expansion, and that anarchy is the only solution. I agree with the former, but not the latter - though that does appear to have happened. I've discussed this elsewhere, but efficiencies in production and distribution in the global economy have facilitated gov expansion esp warfare. This partially explains why the US (and the dollar) has not yet (totally) collapsed, though very smart people have been predicting collapse for a long time and have been largely correct.

Naked Short Selling: Bear Stearns and Lehman

This makes me hate Dodd less.

Stop Global Cooling: Fire and Ice

The oft referenced Newsweek article from the '70's claiming the world was getting too cold.

Reminds me of my favorite poem:

Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I’ve tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To know that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.

Tax the Fed then End It?

Ex-CIA Officer Steele thinks so, watch the full video - it's awesome.

On Survival Systems

This post is brief and lazy, so please complain in the comments if you like.

Over the course of some thousand of years, hunter gatherers transitioned to farmers, who transitioned to specialists, and now we have mass production - I'm calling these "survival systems". I tend to hold with the Energy Returned on Energy Invested (EROI) folks for why the transitions have happened. EROEI predicts a reversal as the returns decrease which, imo, we're seeing now as increased divergence from (geo) libertarianism.

Rant: One of the problems with neofeudal corporatism/mass production is that it treats humans as robots. If we can create and fuel robots, we don't need as many robot-humans. But with fewer robot-humans working we have lower demand for the things we're mass producing. Further, humans don't make particularly good robots and neofeudalism sucks for the serfs, so when EROEI allows they will want to return to their more liberated state. But the feudal lords like their setup - and have corporate welfare to keep otherwise impractical survival systems running. You also have money creation that replaces savings for initial capital investment which hides the actual cost of creating the feudal mass production system, and then you have legacy infrastructure in the way that precludes hunting and farming land: something needs to be done to revert the land.

See societal collapse: runaway train

personal note: geo-libertarianism with atom taxation

Thank You China

We need all the help we can get to clean house.

Though, while not trying to look a gift horse in the mouth, I think I'd still rather live here. For now at least. Unless you've got a really good job for me in that capitalist powerhouse you've built ... hint, hint.

An Appeal to Charities

The health care debate rages on. Historically, charity has been responsible for providing for the less fortunate. I therefore appeal to charities to up their efforts to provide health care to the American poor instead of letting the government take it over.

I have donated to various organizations in the past, but I want to specifically appeal to the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation on this one. Bill Gates and Microsoft are a capitalist success story. Warren Buffet, who has contributed largely to the foundation, would not be where he is without the entrepreneurial American spirit.

I have my theories of why a donation has not already been made, one of which is that Washington should not be setting the agenda for charities; but even a symbolic contribution at this point may sway the tide back towards freedom and individual excellence.

Contemporary Example that Collectivism in Management Leads to Collectivism in Employees

possible NFL strike due to pay caps

Matt Taibbi should be some kind of bank regulator for washington

empowered to destroy Blood-Sucking Vampire Squid

Rothbard Rocked

On Property Rights

I have a hole in my understanding of Libertarian philosophy that I am trying to fill on property rights, but found this article interesting.

In the New World, the state acted to preempt access to empty or nearly empty land, by claiming it for the "public" domain. This was followed by restrictions on access by individual homesteaders, coupled with massive land grants to land speculators, railroads, mining and logging companies, and other favored classes. The result was to limit the average producer's independent access to the land as a means of livelihood, to thereby restrict his range of independent alternatives in seeking a livelihood, and thus force him to sell his labor in a buyer's market.

coming soon (hopefully): on mass production
also, my opinion is Schiff's on inheritance, but I disagree with him on Iran (he's coming off as a neocon imo)

Michael Bader is Also not a Paedophile

He's just another mind controller for the left. Be very careful if you're easily confused. He takes a valid political movement, suggests they're (all!) emotionally and psychologically traumatized; that it's a reaction to some sort of existential pain, and that he can reprogram them. Scary and cultish.

Is it Really Free Speech ...

... when you're consistently and systematically harassed for the expression?

The Economics of Economic Philosophy: Blame Class?

I have read a few articles implying that the middle class is capitalist, while the upper and lower classes are collectivist, and I wonder if game theory isn't at the root of it.

If you don't have and can't create wealth, it behooves you to take a collectivist approach to wealth. From each according to their ability, to each according to their need. Since you need a lot and are not able, collectivist thought works to your advantage.

If you can create wealth, then it behooves you to try to keep as much of it as you can. Enough said.

Note also that this is a continuum - so that the marginally productive still have a advantage in stealing from the hyper-productive.

The highest echelon game becomes interesting, and there have been several versions throughout history; and there are several strategies being employed now - so don't think this is the only one. Anyway ... the strategy is to sell yourself as the means of collectivism and enforce it through the power of the collective poor and elite. In other words, robin hood from the productive and give to the poor, keeping the lion's share for yourself. If you also steal from the marginally poor, IE, those who can produce enough for themselves if they are not taxed, but not if they are taxed, then give some of it back to them saying you stole it from the rich - you look magnanimous and strengthen your system. At any time you can pull strength from the poor, the marginally poor, and the collective elitist thieves to punish the productive who try to buck your system.

Stick it to the Productive

Excellent article.

George Lakoff is not a Paedophile

He's just a elitist leftist hypocrite who enjoys endives and soufflé out the can. For all the tugging at heartstrings the liberals do to pass their destructive policies, you'd think he'd at least blush when calling the right out on their talking points.

Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope, Too Big To Fail, Mutually Assured Destruction

I saw it first on Beck, and have seen a few blog posts about it. If it is in place, the way I understand it, it explains a lot of the behavior we've seen. Institutions (and their states) would have no reason to not go into unsustainable debt. You could fight unilateral wars of aggression and pay for it on someone else's dime. You could throw party after party and let someone else pick up the tab. It works until it doesn't - when enough prisoners (as in prisoners dilemma) defect and you get Cloward and Pivens on a global scale. Except, IMO, Cloward and Pivens seem to have concluded that more socialism would occur after the reset, when I see more capitalism as the only logical choice.

In Defense of Unions

As you may have noticed from my posts, I'm a big fan of capitalism. I also believe that one of the responsibilities government has in a capitalist economy is to break up unnatural monopolies and regulate natural ones. (I'm going to use monopoly for all collectivist economic structures here - cartels, monopolies, duopolies, etc). However, repeatedly, we have seen regulatory capture, where the monopolies just pay off any (government) intervention - and often guide the government into strengthening their power position.

That's a problem, for freedom and for a sound economy. I have argued previously that collectivist practices in management (executives) leads to collectivist practices in workers. We saw this in the auto industry - when a town only has one business, the only way for workers to get their fair share is to unionize. But this holds true if a cartel forms, too. Let's say there are three auto makers. If management does not collaborate, there is constant competition to fairly compensate employees (also known as competition for the best talent) - the best managers are also rewarded as customers choose the best product. However, if the companies conspire against the workers to, for example, cap pay, you will likely see guilds form to compensate for the collectivist activities of the executives.

I see this phenomenon playing out now where we have the collectivist financial elites and large powerful unions take center stage as the economy collapses.

Health Care

I think I've written this before, but I'll repeat it anyways. To fix health care we should:

• stop buying insurance


• use savings, family, friends, and charity instead


• ask for the cost of a visit/procedure


• beak up the monopoly on health providers


• degrees and certifications can be used to help the consumer choose, in addition to services like yelp and consumer reports


• life threatening trauma and contagious disease would be handled as they are now (no insurance, no problem)

Game Theory Brain Dump

I'm not going to pretend to present this properly, but maybe you can make some sense out of it anyway.

One of the problems right now can be the lack of a coherent message out of the current upsurge of political activity. I'm going to do a quick compare/contrast from what I perceive to be the libertarian perspective.

(PSEUDO) PARTY COMPARISON
neocon - promotes an aggressive and expensive foreign policy contrary to libertarian ideas of force for self defence only and non-coercion. Also often progressives. See Cheney and Wolfowitz
conservative - looks to the past for ideas and leaders, can easily be affected by precedent over principle. See Hanity, O'Reilly, Gingrich
lawful republican - law based instead of (necessarily) principle based. A good match since law is a good tactic for the implementation of (libertarian) ideals. See Judge Nepolitano
fascists - believe the government should work closely with big business and/or big unions. See lobbyists
royalty/cronies - the long serving members of the (republican) party and their entourage. See Bush
machiavellians - use cultural mores to win elections. See Lee Atwater and Karl Rove


There are more, but these factions represent the big players I'm seeing.

POWER
There are many different kinds of power, but I want to break things down to money, referential, force, legitimate. Money should be obvious, the most powerful players here are the federal reserve, the treasury, big banks, and big business. Referential power is popularity, and is largely the reason for democratic elections - attractive, charismatic, entertaining individuals top this list: actors, sports stars, models, handsome politicians, etc. Force is the power of physical violence: military, CIA, FBI, homeland security, police. Legitimate is the use of title and position and is often backed by force: manager, CEO, president, judge, etc.

I assert that any movement must have aspects of each of these four powers, so the question becomes: how can we use these powers to achieve our political objectives without compromise?


Money
current state: money is getting funnelled to both parties (and their constituent districts) by powerful players including the treasury, fed, banks, extremely wealthy individuals, military, and big business.

strategy: money is not as important as what it can buy. Once people wake up to what and who the money players are buying, their influence will diminish and the resources and labor of the majority will become more powerful. However, until the tipping point is reached, money saved, donated, and withheld from opponents is critical. I would hesitate to donate to any candidate unless they have a long libertarian voting record.


Referential
current state: Obama is possibly the most referentially powerful politician in recent history. People like him, he's handsome and charming. He lacks moral integrity, though, and today, with the free flow of information, a referential candidate cannot survive without a solid philosophical base. Further, they control the traditional media outlets by which people become familiar with leaders/candidates.

strategy: we are blessed with excellent referentially powerful leaders right now. Ron Paul, Alex Jones, and Peter Schiff come to mind, but there are certainly more. It won't hurt us to expand this base, but we should be careful not to dilute the message/philosophy. For example, someone like Sara Palin can come along, champion the tea party movement to get elected, then bomb Iran. So we need to keep the core strong, continue championing the philosophy, and look for more referential leaders who "get it". Further, we need to protect the ability for current leaders to get in front of the public - be that through what has worked so far (internet, grass roots), or traditional outlets (TV, debates, newspapers).


Force
current state: The neocons have waged unconstitutional war and implemented an oppressive national spy and enforcement grid. The force implementers are served by the strong money relations between themselves and the current system.

strategy: maximize personal ability to use force in self defence: exercise, learn hand to hand combat, buy pepper spray. Inform local police and sheriff about the libertarian movement, and its relationship to the law and the constitution. Support the troops and a strong national defence without promoting aggressive war. Recruit current force implementers (police, private security, military) or retired ones to provide security for a libertarian event.


Legitimate
current state: The republican/democrat duopoly control the government seats of power and are in collusion with the executives of large, monopolistic companies who also hold hierarchical titles.

strategy: run more libertarians for office. Hire libertarians into executive positions if you own a company or sit on the board of directors. Create or join a libertarian group which will lend the leadership of that group more authority, possibly become a leader of that group - expect leaders of these groups to push a libertarian agenda by attending political and community functions.


My biggest concern is that the energy and enthusiasm will be hijacked by the old guard. We need to be wary of folks like Beck, Palin, Romney, Bush and others who have played dirty trick politics for a long time and game the system instead of represent the people.

Stossel Does it Again: Govm'nt Education

watch the entire series

End the Duopoly: a Consensus Issue

I think people are starting to understand the Caroll Quigley, "swap out the talking head party every so often to keep the masses placated", strategy. While I'm concerned that any third party might eventually be captured into the cartel, it may be worth voting for "the most popular third party candidate" as a game theory strategy. Third parties might even form consortiums where they agree to hold a primary and only run the most likely candidate with other candidates agreeing to endorse the candidate before the election.

Theft: a Consensus Issue

A point of grave concern I've noticed talking to both capitalists and socialists is the idea of theft. Socialists seem to think: "we need socialism to keep the financial elites from stealing from us", while the capitalists say, "we need capitalism to keep the government elites from stealing from us". Well, seems to me we need to stop theft. We agree on it, we see it, we need to stop it. It's attractive to both the left and the right, but I can't say it's bi-partisan.

Fiat Currency, the Gold Standard, and Government

Lot's of good stuff on his channel. Schiff posted first.

The Bubble Setup

Warning: Conspiracy Theory/Conjecture

Remember the dot com bubble? I do. Burst just before Bush Jr. took office. Remember the housing bubble? Burst just before Bush Jr. left office. Coincidence?

Historically, Republicans have been known for sound fiscal policy while Democrats create social program liabilities to buy proletariat votes. On the surface, it would appear that democrats get to destroy the economy for short term gain and the Republicans have to bite the bullet and repair the damage.

Now, from the data I've seen, that seems to have changed under Reagan, where his tax cuts were made in a way that left a large deficit ... but, he's also credited for the economic recovery during that period.

I think that what happened recently, though, is that conservative politicians realized that if they fixed the (underlying) economic problems during the Bush administration, that they would not get re-elected. So, instead, Bush brought us to the brink of an economic collapse through the housing bubble (in part to reduce the pain from the dot com bubble correction), while filling the pockets of cronies and hoping the burst would force the next (Democratic) administration into sound economics, and limit their ability to initiate or continue entitlement programs. Instead, Obama has been "doubling down" - blaming the Bush administration (rightfully, but you rarely heard Bush blaming Clinton), but instead of correcting course he has been hitting the accelerator, and we're heading off the cliff.

http://reddit.com/r/Libertarian

Some good stuff has been coming out of the libertarian subreddit.





Stossel crony capitalism

Obama @ Republican Retreat

Obama spoke and answered questions at the Republican retreat recently. I don't have the time or patience for a thorough analysis, but here are some talking points:

• He is using the idea of "rise above this" and "work together" to mean "do it my way"
• "good ideas" seem to be, by definition, ideas that he likes
• He dodges a lot of questions, including, "What should we tell our constituents when we've presented many solutions to health care, but they hear from you that we are not presenting alternatives?"
  
• He panders to his audience, complimenting for example a person's family, then uses that to gain political points later on
• He denies that he is an ideologue, but then fails to recognize that the differences in health care strategies are largely idealogical. E.G. small gov vs big gov, gov intrusion vs choice
  

I'm Starting to Really, Really, Really Like CATO

Boondogglers Love a Train

In his SOTU address, Obama announced that there would be new railroad construction. Why railroads?

There is a piece of property in eastern Oregon that is near and dear to my heart. It has four dilapidated log shacks on it. The shacks are next to a stream that holds rainbow and brook trout. There are meadows that support cattle, deer, and elk. You can get lost in the vast forest. My distant relatives own it. I always dreamed of owning it one day. It's a mile by mile stretch of land.

How could one family, in fact one person for a while, own such a large piece of fertile land? Railroads. You see, when the first railroads conquered the west, the government was involved. Kinda like today. One of the things they did was grant large stretches of land to the railroads. And the railroads need large tracks of land to build on ... makes sense, right?

Funny thing is, there's not a railroad within a hundred miles of this property. My relative was an exec for the railroad. As a bonus they comped him this land. Get it?

Warren Buffet has been purchasing railroads for a while. Not because they have great P/E, but because of their great book value. In other words, they don't earn much for how much they cost, but they own a lot of capital for how much they cost - capital that used to be ours.

Let me quickly rant about some of the problems with trains, then I'll give the closer. Trains have limited destinations; unlike automobiles, planes, or boats, a train is limited to the few tracks that have been built for it. Following the last point, you have to have a secondary mode of transportation to get to one of the train's fixed destinations; meaning you've already invested in a car, bicycle, bus, etc. Unlike private vehicles (cars, bicycles, private watercraft) trains only work on schedules; you can't just hop into your train and go; this creates inefficiencies. Our highway system already connects destinations the trains are proposed for, creating a competition for public funds in the creation and maintenance of these redundant systems.

The closer. When the government is not involved in a venture, capitalists must decide whether they will at least break even on their investment. In other words, will people pay enough for the product/service I am creating so that I can recoup my money? And people (as a group) will only pay enough to offset the costs of the product/service if it gives them equal or greater value. If entrepreneurs thought there was going to be large demand for a railroad, the government wouldn't need to be involved. Investors would front the money knowing that people would gladly pay to ride the trains (or companies would pay to haul cargo) and that investors would recoup their outlay. In fact, the government wouldn't bother considering railroads if they were an efficient mode of transportation, because one or more would already be in the works or operating. Why aren't there already private railroads like the ones being proposed? Because it's a bad investment. People don't want them and won't use them enough to justify the outlay of capital. Investors know this.

Instead, railroads have and will be used to syphon wealth from tax payers into the hands of politicians, their contributors, and railroad executives. History repeats itself.

Poll: Would You Vote for a Ron Paul Candidate?

If you would vote for Ron Paul if he was running in your district, you might want to check this poll out.

nme16 uses censorship to silence capitalists

I recently made two comments to “The Prejudice of Race alone…”. However, my second comment has been removed, so I will paraphrase it here.

I believe that the author, and many anti-meritocrats, are jealous of amazing individuals. Instead of appreciating the light successful capitalists bring to the world, attackers perceive others' success as lessening their own. To syphon off the luminescence of the great they attack the (economic) systems which allow for their success; in this case by associating capitalism with racism.

I am not writing this because I am immune to jealousy nor because I am particularly successful. I am writing it because I have some understanding of jealousy, having been the victim of the emotion on both sides of success; because I believe that capitalism is the best economic system in the long term for all; and that jealousy will not end under any economic system.


To make sure I capture the first comment before it is also removed, I have copied it here.

You are participating in the Orwellian redefinition of capitalism.

Capitalism is an economic and social system in which capital, the non-labor factors of production (also known as the means of production), is privately owned; labor, goods and capital are traded in markets; and profits distributed to owners or invested in technologies and industries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

Capitalism means you can own stuff. A capitalist is a person who believes that capitalism is the most appropriate economic system. This is in contrast to the many collectivist systems where your property may be taken at the whim of the mob.

It has allowed folks like Michael Jordan, Bill Cosby (who you disparage), George Washington Carver, and many other hard working, talented, people to prosper thanks to capitalism’s intrinsic meritocracy.

An Open Question: How Much of Obama's Personal Wealth Is Going to Haiti?

I wasn't able to find this from my quick google search, so I'm hoping someone can help me with it. We know that Obama contributed $100 million (and I believe additional non-monetary aide) to Haiti. This is tax payer money (and dollar holder wealth via money creation). So my tax dollars (and dollar savings) have gone to Haiti - whether I like it or not.

The president makes a lot more than me (I think he's at $400k). His accumulated wealth is also greater than mine by an order of magnitude. So I'm wondering how much of his own money he has pledged to Haiti. Is it greater than the money he has pledged on my behalf? Is it greater, percentage wise, based on our annual salaries? Based on net worth?

Update: Gisele Bundchen donated $1.5 million, Sandra Bullock has given $1 million, Redditors have given over $100K, Obama has robin hooded my money; how much of his own fortune has he donated?

Update: The president's salary is not tax free.

Update: The Obama's have donated $15k. I like to think I had something to do with that ... you never know.

Erik Naggum Email

Erik Naggum is eulogised by his peer as a thoughtful Randite.

Excellent article, I recommend you read it in full. I often criticize texts like these, though, not because I disagree with them greatly, but rather because I agree with them so much that I can efficiently present my thoughts as small differences from their abundance.

Appropriately, I want to compliment his inference that collectivism may exists to hedge risk and redistribute the cost of reproduction. I also agree with his analysis of in vivo freedom.

However, I take issue with his hypothetical society where, to paraphrase, viable reproductive individuals are identified and allowed to procreate while those who cherish freedom and production are allowed their liberties - but are, by their own acts, precluded from mating.

I find this absurd and wrong-headed. It is another version of collectivist central planning - which I admit I am also addicted to. Imo, it is in fact the ideology driving the problems he describes in the capitalist/socialist hybrid implemented in the US.

The problem is the lack of faith in liberty and capitalism. I assert that there are individuals who will not reproduce unless they are free, though this may lie on a continuum (with less freedom they will be less likely to reproduce). The more they perceive that they are slaves, that big brother is watching them, that they are the subjects of the nanny state; the more likely they will put off creating a family. As they perceive that their productive capacity is being stolen to nourish their enemy, they rebel. These individuals, through their desire to be independent and free, will not reproduce until they have savings which cannot be stolen - by collectivists or comparatively innocent common thieves. By artificially selecting individuals to mate, you provide no disincentive for genes, behaviour, or values which are not self sustaining - and the system will eventually collapse.

Therefore, any society that does not pursue (and obtain) freedom and capitalism, will, to various degrees, be a society that nurtures evil (in the form of leeches, thieves, and incompetents).

Erik mentions the problem of the cost born by the productive to reduce the burden of the unproductive - with a nod toward the cost/benefit of tolerance. This is the same problem between virus (leech) and host. Both the host and virus want to survive. A virus that kills its host quickly will not last. A virus that causes many problems for its host will (eventually, through evolution) force its host population to develop immunity. Benign viruses rarely achieve attention by the host, which naturally devotes resources to more valuable pursuits. However, there are viruses like HIV whose presence may not be obvious early on, but eventually end the host. This becomes a complex (but accurate) analogy, and I won't pursue every likeness here.

Collectivism in its various forms is like HIV. Listen to those who survived it by fleeing soviet Russia and communist China. They are our immune system. Ayn Rand was one. There are many, many more. They fled these systems because those systems were killing them. Eventually these systems failed. We are realizing the first symptoms of this disease - we need to protect ourselves and loved ones from becoming infected.

Final thoughts: kidneys that call the liver useless and seek to eliminate it will perish. Fat cells are a liability until famine hits.