We'll be back with a few changes.

See you soon.

Roger Clemens, Steroids, and Perjury. Good Reality TV, Terrible Politics

Government again takes time to tackle the imminent issue of...steroids use in Major League baseball?  The video below dates to 2008 where Congress first decided to take on the steroids issue; this week the perjury matter will consume time and taxes in the federal court system. 

This foray into the goings on of professional sports is a classic example of government involving itself in matters that have nothing to do with the matters of government.  Politicians get their time pontificating before cameras while the debt, deficit spending, foreign military entanglements, declining freedom at home, that will all have to wait for televised committee meetings.

Vote-catching demagogues in Congress play to the social demands and tolerances of their constituents.  The less people tune in to this kind of nonsense and the more they demand Congress do the things it is actually authorized to do in the Constitution, the better.

Having just celebrated the Fourth of July, perhaps a line from the Declaration would put this debacle into sharper perspective:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. (Emphasis added.)

Changes in the Middle East

Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Bahrain.  The people of the Middle East are restless and demanding change.

The important question is this: What change are the people of that region desiring?

When we see oppressed people revolting and unseating their long-standing despots and tyrants we of course wish to see them succeed.  But what if all they really want is a change of masters, someone better suited to provide for their needs?  Have the people of this region simply grown tired of how poorly their overlords have ordered and planned their societies and, if so, simply want more efficient dictators?

In her penetrating look at man's historic struggle against arbitrary authority, Rose Wilder Lane reminds us that mankind has long believed, erroneously, that people are controlled by an intangible force--gods, spirits, luck, etc--and their rulers are political manifestations of that force.

Very few men have ever known that men are free.  Among this earth's population now, few know the fact.  The Discovery of Freedom, 1943 

Revolutions and uprisings and social upheavals in "The Old World" revolved around this belief and anytime rulers were deposed it was in order to institute another ruler with no less authority over the people, just one with what the people believed had a better chance to rule them more efficiently.

I'm not suggesting this scenario is the case in the Middle East.  It may very well be, though.  If it is the case then what we're witnessing in the Middle East is no revolution, just violent efforts to put new faces to the same old problems. 

If this is not the case, as I hope it to be, then we could be witnessing a long-overdue step forward in that region, politically, economically, and with regard to basic civil and human rights.  Limitations on the power of government could be instituted and a new understanding of the proper role and place of government power in the lives of everyday individuals could take hold.

This entire process depends, of course, on the vitality and commonality of the idea of freedom, just as it does in any society around the globe.

I hope this latter scenario is the case and, if so, wish them every good turn and blessing on the long road ahead.

I'm a Daddy!!!

I won't be posting for a while as I'll be preoccupied: We are the proud parents of a  baby girl!

This would a great time for more guest contributions. Be encouraged to send your scribblings to freedomlessons@gmail.com or adam@freedomlessons.net

God bless!

US Intervention Would Hurt, Not Help, Libyan Protesters

It sounds counter intuitive, but intervening in Libya with US forces for humanitarian purposes would harm the very people such intervention is designed to help. 


We've been down this road before.  Think of Somalia and Iraq in the 1990s.  Humanitarian intervention via the force of US military leads to nothing good for the people we intend to aid, strengthens the authoritarian rule of the thugs we intend to weaken, and reinforces resentment of the US in the Muslim world.

Now Senator Graham wants to try it all over again by enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya.    

At 5:05 Graham pontificates on how US military intervention, via a no-fly zone, would weaken Qaddafi's air capability and save lives.

Militarily, such an immediate goal is probably attainable and would put a momentary stop to the killing of Libyans by air strike.  Politically, however, intervening would give Gadhafi rhetorical leverage to solidify loyalty and increase violent suppression of protesters. We're quick to dismiss Gadhafi's rants as delusional but he has been saying the Libyan uprisings have been incited by the US.

Seeing American fighter jets blanket Libyan airspace would only give credence to Gadhafi and embolden his loyalists.  Protesters could be viewed not only as disloyal to Gadhafi but also collaborators with the US government. 

This move would increase the ranks of pro-Gadhafi forces and give him some credibility among the Libyan people just as such credibility is vanishing.   This halt, or perhaps shift, in momentum can only lead to further violence against protesters, not less, and only prolong all the violence and suffering that attends such civil wars.

Any of these situations would be detrimental to the anti government protesters and would only prolong the fighting and their suffering.

As Bruce Fein notes in his poignant book, American Empire: Before The Fall, there are two reasons to desist from humanitarian intervention via military force: they fail at their stated goals and compound the misery of the population, and they are a pretext for any country for military occupation of any other country.  It is lose-lose.

Opposition to Gadhafi is growing.  We should let it continue to grow by staying out of the mess.

GM: The Shriveld Fruit of Central Planning

"The market, that means the buyers; the consumers, that means all the people...[U]nder planning or socialism the goals of production are determined by the supreme planning authority. The individual gets what the authority thinks he ought to get."~~Ludwig von Mises, The Elite Under Capitalism, an essay in Economic Freedom and Intervention

Via Hotair, General Motors "decides" to spend $40 million on a carbon emissions program.

I put the word, decides, in quotation marks because General Motors is no longer in a position to make decisions according to what consumers in the market desire.  They are not interested in supplying what consumers in the market demand and, since the government is the shareholder with the the endless flow of taxpayer funds (the carrot) and holds the power of regulation (the stick), it is likely GM simply is not permitted to decide matters for itself.

Would a majority of private shareholder, if GM had all private shareholders, support $40 million spent on a program neither desired by consumers nor mandated by regulations?

Worse yet, the convoluted anti-free market partnership of government and a major corporation--wrought by bailouts, initiated by Bush and finished by Obama--places the federal government in a position to plan a major sector of what is supposed to be our economy.  It makes cover for the age-old authoritarian impulse to control how people supply for the wants and needs of other people in society. (What is a free market capitalist economy other than one existing for and driven by the desires of individuals?) 

GM's "decisions" therefore political, not economical.  They act at the behest of government command, therefore ignore consumer demand.

Can we demand no more bailouts, please.

Quote of the Week (and a Great Article)

"Wisconsin looks a lot like Egypt this week. But while Arabs are fighting to end extraordinary overreach by government, Wisconsin union protesters are fighting to preserve it."~~~Chris Ewards of the Cato Institute

Commentary would only detract from the point made. 

Click here for the full article.

Since Ron Paul is Still The Topic Dujour...

Note the talk of social conservatism.  One can in fact be a social conservative and not be in favor of using the coercive force of government to advance those social values.  It's called consistency and principle...

sljfldjf

CPAC Friday. Ron Paul Speaks

I've noticed a significant difference between the, a) run-of-the-mill presidential hopefuls and, b) Ron Paul.  When a) speak in the the main ballroom, it will be mostly filled.  When Ron Paul speaks, people begin to line up to get in an hour ahead of time.

The line for Ron Paul went on and on into the main lobby.  Those turned away due to the capacity being filled (myself included) went to an overflow room equipped with a large screen streaming his speech live.  The overflow room was filled.  I was standing along the wall.

Another significant difference: energy and excitement.  When a) speaks and offers the standard platitudes about maintaining an endless war with no visible end (my words, not their political speak), a smattering of applause crops up in spots.  When Ron Paul talks of the insanity of continuing the same old foreign policy, bedlam erupts.

When a) speak in measured political-speechie tones about embracing "the principles that made America great," more smattering applause.  When Paul speaks of defending liberty, more bedlam.

Ron Paul is not a good speaker.  All the a) politicians are.  It is the principles of freedom that spark excitement, not the cadence of more of the same old rah-rah America platitudes.

Thursday afternoon, part II

This place is packed.  I just got shut out of Rand Paul in the main ballroom.  Grover Norquist noted that this year's attendance will exceed last year's record of 10,000+.  That's a good sign that a freedom-oriented movement did not cap out after last November's election.

Jumping subjects, I did manage to attend a panel discussion on cutting Defense spending sponsored by the Committee for the Republic.  Bruce Fein was on the panel.  Last year was the first I'd heard Mr. Fein speak.  He is well worth following; catch some Youtube samples of his arguments if you can.  Here's one:

CPAC, Thursday afternoon

New Gingrich?  Hmmm.  There must be an ethanol, global warming, or a Vote For Dee Dee Scozzafava break out panel here I was not aware of. 

CPAC is a big tent, all-inclusive minded bunch of folks after all.

CPAC, Thursday morning...

Alright, I made it to CPAC.  Driving into and around the Imperial Capital at 7:30 am on a week day sure is a great reminder of why I don't ever want to live here, but I made it.

Arriving too late to catch Michelle Bachmann's opening remarks, I managed to catch about 2/3 of her speech.  Being a tax attorney, she is well aware of the overly complex and invasive tax code and its job-killing consequences.  She's also a good public voice on the staggering effects of the debt and federal spending.  I wish figures like Representative Bachmann would take advantages of opportunities like this morning's speech to remind everyone just how terrible her party has been with these issues, in the very recent past.  It would be cathartic but very good to have a public airing of grievances on this subject.  I find it difficult to believe the big spenders and establishment-first curs are not still lurking around in the Republican Party, waiting for enough people to fall back asleep.

She's also dedicated to repealing Obamacare and is probably the strongest public voice keeping issue in at the fore.

Ron Johnson personifies what senators and congressman should be: not politicians.  Before being elected to the Senate in the fall, he never held political office.  He did not even work in politics.  He ran a manufacturing plant for decades.  He used the term, citizen legislator more than once, and I'm glad he did.

Johnson is refreshing.  He was unknown by everyone, ran a business in the free market, was told repeatedly he would never beat the leftist icon and sitting senator, Russ Feingold, ran a conservative campaign, and won in spite of the reflexive you've got to be more moderate to win in a blue state establishment mentality.  Freedom and limited government are his core principles.  And he's not afraid of losing reelection on those terms. 

Good on you, Senator Johnson. 


More later as random thoughts ping around.  I'll edit this page throughout the day...

He Said It. The Economic Absurdity of The Health Care Mandate

Any legislative provision that forces Americans into any economic transaction is wildly unconstitutional.  Why have a written constitution if the government can do pursue any matter it wishes?

Beyond the unconstitutionality of the individual mandate in the 2010 health care law, the fanciful economic wishful thinking that forcing Americans to purchase health insurance with the coercive force of the federal government will somehow drive overall health care costs down is too far removed from common sense to warrant debate.

It just makes no sense, has no precedent, and defies generations of economic experience.

Look at the cost and price of any economic good after the government subsidies or goads it along with coercion.  It goes up costing consumers and taxpayers (many times the same persons) more than what they would pay in the free market.

Then-Senator Obama made such a point in 2008 during his primary run against Hillary Clinton.  Via Hotair, here's the Fox News clip on the heels of the recent federal judge's tossing out the unconstitutional law:



At the risk of sounding flippant, it would be great if a copy of the Constitution and Hazlitt's Economics In One Lesson made their way, respectively, onto the presidents teleprompters. 

Rand Paul: A Voice of Clarity

"If we are to succeed in the great struggle of ideas that is under way, we must fist of all know what we believe.  We must also beome clear in our own minds as to what it is that we want to preserve if we are to prevent ourselves from drifting."~~F.A. Hayek The Constitution of Liberty

The Myth of Government "Investment"

"[W]hile business investment must make a future profit, government 'investment' need only receive hosannas from its paid and unpaid apologists in order to be pronounced 'successful.' "~~~Murray Rothbard Jan. 1993

Since the president's SOTU address it looks like "investment" and "investing" are the vogue new ways to redefine government spending.  Really?

By definition it is an impossibility for government to "invest" in anything.  Government has no wealth of its own to invest; it can only confiscate and borrow wealth at the detriment of taxpayers, then spend what it has confiscated and borrowed. 

Investment occurs when individuals freely put up their own capital risking loss and financial detriment to themselves, for the opportunity to return a profit.  If people invest, they do so freely.  There is risk and there is reward or loss.

Government has no capital to invest because it has never created wealth.  It can only confiscate and spend the wealth its citizens have created using the monopoly of force it necessarily holds.  If it spends, it does so using force.  There is no risk or market pressure to "invest" prudently as government  has no wealth of its own to lose--it's your money!  There is no reward because there is no way to quantify what happens when wealth is spent for political--not financial--reasons by myriad of politicians and bureaucrats.  And there is no loss because government has budgeting committees and the bottomless pit of taxpayer wealth to fall back on--oh, and it also has a running line of credit with foreign governments to borrow at will and the Federal Reserve to print fiat money at will.

Was there a Department of Government Investment in Orwell's 1984?

Ludwig von Mises and The Digital Revolution

"Human society is an association of persons for cooperative action."  

 ~~Ludwig von Mises 

"The so-called leftist parties...all look upon progressing material improvement as upon a self-acting process."

~~The same


Watch this video and consider: How can society exist and progress without the free and uncoordinated action of millions of individuals?  (That's my reaction to the question at the end of the video.)

Don't Jump To Conclusions Unless It's Politically Beneficial

After the Fort Hood shooting President Obama urged Americans to not jump to conclusions regarding that shooter's ideology and intent:


It was difficult not to jump to conclusions as the shooter yelled "Allahu Akbar!" just before opening fire on US military personnel, but the media did its best delay judgment:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

The spilled blood at the Tuscon shooting was still warm when bloggers and the media went jumping to conclusions about the Tea Party, Sara Palin, talk radio, and political dissent coming from "the Right." Contrary little facts like the shooter's affection for Karl Marx and evidence of his mental instability and occult involvement did not slow them down a bit.  The president has declined to again caution against hastily ascribing ideological motives to the shooter, even with the glaring lack of evidence of "right wing" motivation and the growing cacophony of the Left:


To the contrary, since Saturday there has been a steady stream of bold-faced attempts to connect a disturbed murderous wacko to public opposition to the progressive Left agenda.

Via Hotair here is a long list of documented violence and hatred from the Left within the last few years, click here.

The Constitution Does Not Require a Secret Decoder Ring

Alright, it's a little late for a clip from A Christmas Story, but enjoy it anyway:



Now listen to Bill O'Reilly summarize the public split over the Constitution and the role of the Supreme Court:



"Remember kids, only members of Annie's Secret Circle can decode Annie's secret message."

Remember Americans, you need not be a member of the Supreme Court to, 1) understand what the Constitution says, and, 2) take a step back and remember what the purpose of a written constitution is:  limit the power of the government it authorizes with its provisions.

So be sure to drink your Ovaltine and insist there are actual limits to how much of your liberty the federal government may diminish, that is, what it may do.   Your health and free society are depending on you!

Video: Milton Friedman On Uncommon Knowledge

Peter Robinson is an excellent interviewer.  He does not let himself and his own ego get in the way of asking good questions---an uncommon virtue for a talking head.

In this interview Milton Friedman responds to questions concerning the role of government in society.  Robinson begins by asking for a clarification of libertarianism.  Friedman asserts there are two stripes of libertarianism and decidedly sets himself down with the latter of the two described.

There is enough room for disagreement between the Rothbard types and the Friedman types without parting ways.  There is certainly enough freedom to reclaim and protect to keep the two camps united!

Video: First and Secondary Consequences of Taxes

"Economics, as we have now seen again and again, is a science of recognizing secondary consequences."~~~Henry Hazlitt, Economics In One Lesson

What would happen if the current income and estate tax rates stayed the same?  That is, what first and second consequences would ensue from not raising taxes?

Americans would do one of three things with their un-confiscated property.  Any of these would be a first consequence of not raising taxes:

1. Spend it
2. Save it
3. Invest it

And then there are the secondary consequences of not raising taxes:

1. If spent, un-confiscated property contributes to economic activity.   That's good in a recession
2. If saved, un-confiscated property adds to capital accumulation which makes more capital available for lending, thus increasing credit availability.   That's good in a recession.
3. If invested, un-confiscated property contributes to capital investment without which broad economic expansion cannot take place.  That's good in a recession.

If government decreases the amount of property it allows Americans to keep, all three of these opportunities expire. That's a consequence of raising taxes and that's not good in a recession.