In Defense of Capitalism

I made the mistake of commenting on an article I saw on Facebook the other day. For the most part, I've more or less learned to refrain from getting into arguments with strangers over Facebook or through the comment sections of articles I read. You have about as good a chance of convincing these people of the righteousness of your argument as you do in convincing Liberace that sequins and gold don't have to be wardrobe staples.

Alas, I have a fatal flaw, though, in that if I see stupid in the world, I feel the need to try and correct it. Hence this blog. Hence my futile efforts at trying to convince some avowed socialists that capitalism, far from being the cause of world poverty and hunger, has actually done more than any other system known to man to lift people and countries out of poverty.

The title of the article was Capitalism and Global Poverty: Two Billion Poor, One Billion Hungry and the little preview snippet of the article read, "The report describes the conditions produced by capitalism—mass poverty, deprivation, social injustice, inequality, oppression—but makes no reference to capitalism. There is simply no mention of the economic system under which the world’s population lives, and thus no discussion of any alternative." Oy vey.

Enter Haley, stage left: "Sorry, wrong. Capitalism has brought more people out of poverty than any other system. Bread lines don't happen under capitalism. Food shortages don't happen under capitalism. Millions and millions of people starved and died under the communist and socialist regimes of China and Russia. Venezuela is lacking basic necessities under their socialist regime. Sorry, you can't blame capitalism for hunger and poverty unless you bastardize the definition of capitalism."

Then the stupid comes: "I believe that polls show that majorities in 'liberated' Warsaw Pact countries miss communism. They thought it was bad - until they experienced predatory capitalism..." I'd like to see these polls and talk to some of those Chinese and Russians who lived under Mao and Stalin and see if they really did enjoy living under those regimes more than current ones. 

This guy here really lets me have it: "Why is that always ignorant people defend capitalism with a counter argument of communism? have you personally ever lived in a real communist country? I gusse not, I am sure you have not even been across the state line." Yeah, sure, as I write this from the Bahamas. And fortunately, no, I haven't ever lived in a real communist country as there are hardly any left in existence anymore because people have figured out that it doesn't work!

Not only does it not work, if only it were as simple as "Oops, this didn't work. Let's try something else." No, when socialism and communism fail, they take millions and millions of people down with it. In fact, apart from WWI and WWII, deaths due to communism and socialism were the greatest cause of death than any other cause in the 20th century. It's estimated that 85-100 million people died under these regimes. How are we even debating this? How are people still even thinking that socialism might be more ideal than capitalism? When capitalism fails (and of course these failures are due to government intervention) mass deaths do not happen. Worst case scenario: greedy companies run shady businesses that bilk people out of their life savings. Irrefutably immoral and reprehensible, but millions of people do not die as a consequence. Moderate case scenario: You can't afford an iPhone 5 and instead have to get the Sprint smart phone instead. Oh the horrors of capitalism.

People aren't literally starving to death in countries where they have a relatively free market. People aren't risking their lives on makeshift rafts trying to get away from their oppressive capitalist country for the shores of their communist neighbor. No! People are seeking out freedom, which is what capitalism, in its pure form at least, represents. Even in its bastardized, corporatist form that we experience today, the results are still better than they ever were under socialism. 

I know there are tomes of economic texts out there and you can find any multitude of economists to support your chosen economic system, but let's put this as simply as possible. Capitalism is referred to as the free market, with "free" being the operative word here. You have a boat. I wish to buy a boat. We trade your boat for my money and bingo! That's the free market. There's no force or coercion involved to complete the transaction. We are both better off because of the transaction or else the transaction never would have occurred. I would have kept my money and spent it on something else and you would have sold your boat to someone else if one of us were unhappy with the terms of the sale. Multiply millions of transactions like this everyday and you have the flourishing of a system where people mutually benefit by acting on behalf of their own self interests. This is how our fledgling country developed from nothing to a world superpower in just over a century.

The problems arise when government starts trying to interfere with these freely entered into arrangements. Take the current example of Uber, for instance. Uber is a popular ride sharing enterprise that is starting to displace taxicabs because of its convenience and affordability. Here you have a person or enterprise trying to bring a service to the market, to fulfill a need or a void in the marketplace that they thought the taxicabs weren't filling. On the other hand, you have tens of thousands of willing customers who have found their business model to be much more appealing than the traditional taxicab and have chosen to spend their money freely with Uber. Everyone wins, right? Wrong. Despite this freely entered into business transaction, the government in some states and cities has felt the need to try and ban Uber or severely limit their business. This is a lose-lose. The entrepreneur loses out on potential income and the consumer loses out on a cheaper, more efficient mode of transportation. The only winner in this equation is the taxi cab cabal who has successfully lobbied the government to drive out their competition. Innovation and ingenuity has been stifled. The government flashed the gun hidden underneath its cloak using the implied threat of violence in order to quash this business venture and bestow favor upon another business or industry. 

Therein lies the problem with systems that rely on an excessive amount of government control. The government's only tool is its monopoly on violence and its implied threats thereof. That's why the communist and socialist regimes of the 20th century had such catastrophic results. Not only because these governments presumed to be above the laws of economics, as if they could avoid those laws anymore than they could avoid the laws of gravity, which had disastrous effects on supply and demand causing shortages of daily necessities resulting in mass famine amongst other things, but because their massive overreach into their economies and the free market required violence to subvert the free will of its citizens. 

It was because of these -what should be obvious- facts that I felt the need to go drop some truth bombs on these severely misguided people. As expected, I'm quite certain I failed to persuade anyone to step into the light. That won't keep me from trying, however. As Ron Paul has famously said, "Speak up, speak often and don't worry about those that at this point cannot understand as they can never un-hear what we tell them." 

As for those who are open to learning more about the free market, capitalism, economics, and history, I have a few recommendations all brought to you by the indispensable Tom Woods who, apart from Ron Paul, is by far my favorite figure in the liberty movement. 

For an introductory tidbit that requires minimal time commitment, I offer a brilliant speech that Tom Woods gave in defense of capitalism called "Why Economic Freedom? Here's Why": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnS2OtzSTq0

If you want to delve a little deeper, any of Tom Woods's books are worth reading but in particular regarding this topic I would recommend Meltdown: A Free-Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and Government Bailouts Will Make Things Worse.  

And lastly, for an invaluable resource at a phenomenal price, there is the Tom Woods's Liberty Classroom: The History and Economics They Didn't Teach You. This gives you a high school or beginning college level introduction to many topics taught by actual university professors. Some of the classes include: The American Revolution, History of Political Thought, Austrian Economics Step-By-Step, U.S. History, and Introduction to Logic. Additionally, each course has a corresponding forum where you can ask the professors questions and get clarification on some of the lectures being taught. They also do a monthly webinar with the professors where you can ask your questions and have them answered live on the spot. How much would you pay to get similar courses and access in college? $5000/year? Would you believe that Liberty Classroom will only cost you 1% of that amount? For the mathematically challenged like me, that's 50 bucks. Fifty dollars gets you an awesome introductory education on topics that are more relevant than ever so you can go into a Facebook debate armed with information, for whatever good it will do you ;) A superb value if I ever saw one. 



 





 

How Foolish Will We Be?

I'm baaack!

Sorry for the long hiatus, folks. Work gets in the way of what I really want to do and to be honest, I've been a tad apathetic recently towards politics. I'm a bit scandaled out, if you know what I'm saying.

Nonetheless, if there is one issue that will bring me out of the woodwork, it is the war issue. As it stands, somehow it seems we are now poised to enter into Iraq War 2.0 (or 3.0 if we go all the way back to the 90s). Why can we not just leave this country alone? What is so dang important over there that we've dedicated two and a half decades, over $2 trillion dollars, thousands of American lives, and over a million dead or displaced Iraqis, 500,000 of whom were children under the age of 5 that, we cannot remind you too often, Madeleine Albright once so cavalierly proclaimed were "worth it"?

Yet these architects of destruction, the ones who went out and either told bald-faced lies or were just grossly misguided, are back on the stump trying to get us to go back in and finish the job. Here's a novel idea, if you're in politics and you get something wrong, like way wrong, you don't get to still consider yourself an expert or any sort of authority on the subject which you completely screwed up. Republicans always like to compare government to the private sector by saying things like, "If a private enterprise ever went 50% over budget and didn't produce results, someone would be fired." Well what about if a private company went over budget by $1.9 trillion dollars and about 8 years? Someone would be fired, sued, and maybe even in jail. But, Washington being Washington, the more wrong you are about something the more of the spotlight they tend to give you (Paul Krugman and Ben Bernanke, I'm looking at you).

Jon Stewart on The Daily Show did an epic segment highlighting just how wrong Dick Cheney and his ilk have been on this whole Iraq situation. I hardly pay any attention to The Daily Show anymore but he nails it in this piece, "Now That's What I Call Being Completely F*cking Wrong About Iraq!"

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Indecision Political Humor,The Daily Show on Facebook

What gives me a glimmer of hope now is how many right wing commentators who previously supported the Iraq war as sold to us in the Bush years are now calling Cheney and his cronies out for being wrong about Iraq. They recognize the war as a folly and realize that despite our supposed good intentions, the cost is too great. Megyn Kelly of Fox News took Dick Cheney to task for his role of promoting the Iraq War admonishing him that "...time and time again history has proven that you got it wrong in Iraq as well, sir".

Glenn Beck has also come out in opposition of the Iraq war. In a lengthy monologue on his radio show, Beck had this to say:

Now, in spite of the things I felt at the time when we went into war, liberals said: We shouldn’t get involved. We shouldn’t nation-build. And there was no indication the people of Iraq had the will to be free. I thought that was insulting at the time. Everybody wants to be free. They said we couldn’t force freedom on people. Let me lead with my mistakes. You are right. Liberals, you were right. We shouldn’t have.

Now, if you believed those things, let me say: You were right. If you were just using it for political purposes, well, we don’t have anything in common, But if you really believe those things, I would like to have a conversation with you now to find out exactly how you came to terms with that – especially being a progressive. If you know the history of the progressive movement, it was Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson that started imposing democracy in South America. The reason why South America is just loaded with communists is because we put a lot of them in. That’s the progressive ideal.

But I agree with you: You cannot force democracy on the Iraqis or anybody else. It doesn’t work. They don’t understand it or even really want it. They may be too immersed in their own belief of Sharia Law to embrace liberty or at least at this time. If people vote for Sharia Law, they vote for Sharia Law. We tried. What can we do? We have lost thousands of American lives. We have lost thousands of lives on the Iraqi side and tens of thousands have been wounded. We have spent $2 trillion – say that again – $2 trillion, and upwards of 200,000 Iraqi citizens, aid workers, insurgents have been killed. That’s the conservative number. Liberals will tell you it’s almost 1 million people. I don’t know what the number is, but after all of that, hundreds of thousands of lives, $2 trillion, the best minds in the world trying to do it, it’s about to fall apart...

But, anyway, all of that is gone. And yet, this is something I think that we can come together with, on the right and the left. And it’s this – I have more of a chance of hacking off my loyal listeners and audience by saying this, but so be it: Not one more life. Not one more life. Not one more dollar, not one more airplane, not one more bullet, not one more Marine, not one more arm or leg or eye. Not one more.

The people of Iraq have got to work this out themselves. Our days of being the world’s policemen, our days of interventionists is over. If we are directly attacked, so be it. But this must end now.

Bam! What a change of tune from the Glenn Beck of old. The cherry on top, however, is the conservative standard himself, Ronald Reagan's son, Michael, coming out and apologizing for his support of the Iraq war in the early days, “As a conservative who supported the war in Iraq and my president, I apologize to all of the families of those killed or wounded in Iraq. Going to war in Iraq seemed so right at the time. But I didn’t think it through and neither did Washington. Next time, I promise I’ll know better.”

So what's wrong with the rest of the world? I've had many conversations with people who still don't see what the hubabaloo is, who don't believe that the Bush/Cheney administration lied, who believe that there were WMDs but that they were moved to Syria or we just didn't have enough time to find them, that Iraq was harboring terrorists, that they were training al-Qaeda, and pretty much every other lie trotted out to sell us the Iraq war.

Let me tell you something, even as a young, naive 20 year old college student I could see through the bullshit a mile away. When your president can't give you one good reason and instead has to sell you on 4 mediocre (read: BS) ones, that's not a good enough reason to waste lives or money to go to war. Clearly that does not represent an imminent threat.

Will we make the same mistake again by further immersing ourselves in a region that has been in conflict for a millennium? Do we have the hubris to believe that we can swoop in and magically solve a problem that they haven't been able to solve themselves in almost their entire history? Does "finishing the job" mean we leave troops there always and forever until there is peace in the Middle East, even if that doesn't look likely within this century? Does any of this have anything to do with national security or is it just in our national interests (they are not one and the same)?

Fortunately, there are some in the Republican party, like Rand Paul, who are trying to wrest control of the party away from neocon and uber hawk stalwarts like John McCain and Lindsey Graham and return it to the conservative principles upon which it was founded, not the bloated, multi-tentacled monster wreaking havoc abroad and squeezing us at home but which we're still told represents GOP-style "small government". Rand has been doing the rounds urging a more sensible foreign policy based on Constitutional principles and Congressional oversight. Will we see the return of the anti-war left, missing since 2008, finally stepping up again and allying with their libertarian counterparts to prevent further folly? Will sounder minds prevail or will we be once again bamboozled by our dear leaders into wasting another few hundred billion dollars and putting lives at risk for a region that has no desire to fight for freedom on their own? Like the saying goes, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." How foolish will we be?

The Bundy Rumble

I've been following the Cliven Bundy story pretty much since the get-go, including live tweeting the most tense parts of this saga during the standoff between the BLM and the militia groups that rose to his defense. I've been too busy to blog about it until now and I've got a few things to say.

1) This is gross overreach by the BLM and the federal government pure and simple. 
Supposedly Mr. Bundy owes the federal government more or less a million dollars in grazing fees dating back to 1993 when he stopped paying. Ok, that might be true. I don't have time to delve into the intricacies of the law and what the various court proceedings have been over the decades. Here is what Mr. Bundy and his family have to say about the fees and the whole situation. What I do know is that no private citizen could EVER  legally show up at someone's property with a bunch of armed thugs and threaten violence against someone's person or property in order to satisfy a debt. Those are tactics reserved to the Mafia and ganglords, and the BLM and our government never resorts to those types of heavy-handed tactics, right? Right? Of course that's not right. Violence and threats of violence are the only tools a government has. They can only enforce their decrees at the barrel of a gun. And you know how the old saying goes, "When your only tool is a hammer everything begins to look like a nail". 

People forget, the government works for us, not the other way around. Why should Mr. Bundy pay this agency to "manage" him off his land like they did every other rancher in the area? Once again, I'm sure there is an appropriate Mafia comparison to be made here. Hey Guido, you must pay us to "protect" your business and you must continue paying us even if your business declines and if you stop paying us to protect your business, we'll break your legs and burn your business to the ground. Capisce?

 
2) Mr. Bundy is not a welfare rancher. 
Those of the liberal persuasion are trying to paint Mr. Bundy as some sort of a "welfare queen" because he has been using public lands to graze his cattle without paying for it. "He's been using public land to graze his cattle and not paying for it!", they scream.  "He owes us!", they howl.

He doesn't owe us squat. He's been doing more to that land than you, I, or the federal government ever has. I don't care when the deed for his property was taken out. He claims his family has been there since the 1800s. I don't care that supposedly they didn't sign the deed until the mid 1900s. Who has been there working the land, cultivating it, irrigating it, and homesteading it, the government or the Bundy family? Who has produced more value out of the land, Mr. Bundy by grazing his cattle which will be used to feed people and produce direct and indirect jobs due to his use of the land or the government who by magical decree drew some lines on a map, waved a wand, and declared it "theirs" despite letting it sit untouched (except for the nuclear bombs they've been detonating underground) for over a century?

Indeed, philosopher John Locke had some prescient thoughts on property rights even as far back as the 17th century, as disputes over property are as old as mankind. In a great synopsis of his life and work by the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), there were several paragraphs dedicated to Locke's views on property rights in relation to government:

"Locke established that private property is absolutely essential for liberty: “every Man has a Property in his own Person. This no Body has any Right to but himself. The Labour of his Body, and the Work of his Hands, we may say, are properly his.” He continues: “The great and chief end therefore, of Mens uniting into Commonwealths, and putting themselves under Government, is the Preservation of their Property.”

Locke believed people legitimately turned common property into private property by mixing their labor with it, improving it. Marxists liked to claim this meant Locke embraced the labor theory of value, but he was talking about the basis of ownership rather than value.

He insisted that people, not rulers, are sovereign. Government, Locke wrote, “can never have a Power to take to themselves the whole or any part of the Subjects Property, without their own consent. For this would be in effect to leave them no Property at all.” He makes his point even more explicit: rulers “must not raise Taxes on the Property of the People, without the Consent of the People, given by themselves, or their Deputies."

Locke had enormous foresight to see beyond the struggles of his own day, which were directed against monarchy: “’Tis a Mistake to think this Fault [tyranny] is proper only to Monarchies; other Forms of Government are liable to it, as well as that. For where-ever the Power that is put in any hands for the Government of the People, and the Preservation of their Properties, is applied to other ends, and made use of to impoverish, harass, or subdue them to the Arbitrary and Irregular Commands of those that have it: There it presently becomes Tyranny, whether those that thus use it are one or many.”

Then Locke affirmed an explicit right to revolution: “whenever the Legislators endeavor to take away, and destroy the Property of the People, or to reduce them to Slavery under Arbitrary Power, they put themselves into a state of War with the People, who are thereupon absolved from any farther Obedience, and are left to the common Refuge, which God hath provided for all Men, against Force and Violence. Whensoever therefore the Legislative shall transgress this fundamental Rule of Society; and either by Ambition, Fear, Folly or Corruption, endeavor to grasp themselves, or put into the hands of any other an Absolute Power over the Lives, Liberties, and Estates of the People; By this breach of Trust they forfeit the Power, the People had put into their hands, for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to the People, who have a Right to resume their original Liberty.”

According to the Lockean view, if Mr. Bundy and his family have mixed their labor with the property and improved it, then the property is, by this definition, theirs ("The Labour of his Body and the Work of his Hands...are properly his.") The Bundys have spent decades doing so whereas the government, in this instance, has not. This is what Mr. Bundy is referring to when he says the property is theirs "by preemptive rights by beneficial use". For the government then to swoop in and claim that it's "their" land and that Mr. Bundy owes them money for the privilege of continuing to work and develop the property is ludicrous. Hence Locke's view that government "can never have a Power to take to themselves the whole or any part of the Subjects Property, without their own consent. For this would be in effect to leave them no Property at all.”

Given this view of the dispute, Mr. Bundy and his supporters are affirming the remedy offered by Mr. Locke in instances such as these that, “whenever the Legislators endeavor to take away, and destroy the Property of the People, or to reduce them to Slavery under Arbitrary Power, they put themselves into a state of War with the People, who are thereupon absolved from any farther Obedience, and are left to the common Refuge...against Force and Violence." The militias who rallied around Mr. Bundy innately understood this right to revolt against the BLM who "endeavored to take away and destroy the Property of the People..."

Just as the monarchs of old who would claim large swaths of land as "theirs" despite their never having set foot there or worked the land or produced anything of benefit or value from the land, so it is with our federal government and the BLM arrogantly stating that the land is "theirs" and Mr. Bundy must continue to pay for the privilege of being able to continue to graze his cattle there.

Which brings us to the point of property ownership. Let's forget the Bundys for a moment and just think of this in terms of any normal property "owner". Most of us get a 30 year mortgage in which we take that time to pay the bank off, with interest, during that span. Technically, while we're still paying off the mortgage, it could be said that we don't actually "own" the property outright.

What about once it's paid off, though? We own it then, right? WRONG. There's a little thing called property taxes. One must pay these forever and ever even long after one might have acquired outright "ownership" of their property. What happens if you stop paying these taxes? Well, something similar to what's been happening to Mr. Bundy in that some state or federal agents will show up at your home one day and kick you out of your property. It doesn't matter that your debt has been settled with the bank or the original creditor or that the property has been in your family for generations, you are forever in debt to the government. You see, you don't actually "own" your property. The government is just so benevolent as to let you continue to "rent" it from them so long as you pay your taxes. If you quit paying your taxes, then the government swoops in and collects what is rightfully theirs. If you actually owned your property, they wouldn't be able to do this.

Needless to say, most people don't understand these concepts. It's easier for the media and the unthinking masses to believe that this man is just mooching off of the rest of us tax-paying, law-abiding slaves, I mean, citizens and to demonize a man who dare stood up to the injustice of a federal agents trying to destroy and damage the property he's spent a lifetime nurturing and improving.

3) I don't care IF Mr. Bundy is a racist
Never one to miss a race-baiting moment, the national media has seized on some of the comments Mr. Bundy uttered in which he dared to wonder aloud if the plight of today's black community, enslaved in poverty by the entitlements given by the federal government, are actually no better off than when they were actual slaves working the plantations.

His statement was certainly not made very eloquently, to say the least, but that's not to say there weren't big boulders of truth in what he said. Indeed, many prominent black leaders have been saying the exact same thing for years. Is it only okay for black people to speak these truths? If so, here are a couple of black leaders affirming Bundy's own words. Are they racist too? Demonstrating some self-loathing?

Regardless, it doesn't matter in the issue regarding this man's property. His words make his case no less valid. Do racists not deserve equal protection under the law? Are racists afforded no rights? Do racists deserve to have their property taken from them? Is there a 'racist' exemption under the 1st, 2nd, 4th, or 5th amendments? It. Does. Not. Matter. It is a distraction from the issue at hand and I will not back down from my support of this man in his plight even IF he is a racist. One can reasonably disagree with his words on black people and slavery and still be able to support his cause. The two are not inextricably related.

4) Where is the outrage for the government's criminal actions?
Ok, Mr. Bundy uttered some racially insensitive words. Can anyone tell me who he has actually harmed? Can anyone point out a direct victim of Mr. Bundy's actions? Sure, some might conjecture that his withholding of his money prevented a bridge somewhere from being built or some textbooks being bought for a school. But one could also say that his withholding the money saved lives. By the same token, he might have prevented the federal government from drone bombing another wedding in Yemen and killing innocent children.

Speaking of which, why are liberals more outraged over this man's words and this man's plight than they are over the myriad crimes, actual deeds with actual identifiable victims, committed by the Obama administration? Here, here's a list of some of the youngest victims of Pres. Obama's secret drone murder program. Why isn't Rachel Maddow doing show after show on that? Why isn't Jon Stewart ridiculing and lambasting a president who has verifiably murdered hundreds of children in the Middle East based on secret evidence and a secret program that anoints the president, against our Constitution and any reasonable interpretation of state, federal, and international law as judge, jury, and executioner? Anyone care to explain that to me?

I've seen Twitter comments from the far left advocating for the government to just go ahead and drone bomb the Bundy ranch/family. If only the same vitriol were used against the same person who has been responsible for hundreds of drone murders all across the Middle East against countries we're not even at war with.

The government can lie to us, spy on us, steal our wealth and the fruits of our labor and nobody bats an eye. One man defends his property against government thugs and utters some allegedly racist words and everyone loses their friggin' mind. How do you like your cognitive dissonance in the morning? Scrambled or fried?

5) Last but not least
Finally, I'll say this to those people on the left and on the right who disagree and have done so from the beginning with Mr. Bundy. Even if, for argument's sake, Mr. Bundy is entirely wrong and he owes the government a million dollars and he is just being an obstinate, curmudgeonly bastard, by what right does the BLM have to show up in arms to settle this dispute? They showed up first with guns in hand. Mr. Bundy did not greet them surrounded by a militia and say "Come and take it". There were reports of government snipers on the ground from the very get-go. You DO NOT show up with armed henchmen to settle a property dispute. Period. End of story. Even if Mr. Bundy is in violation of the law, do he and his family deserve to be murdered by government thugs over it? NO!

Just think for a moment, if the federal government were not involved in this situation, would there even be a problem? No. Mr. Bundy is grazing his cattle, something that people have been doing for centuries now. The government is the one making the noise and beating their chest over this issue. Nobody has issued a complaint about Mr. Bundy. Mr. Bundy has not harmed anyone. There is literally no issue here except the one that the government wants to make an issue. 

Mr. Bundy and the militias that rallied to his side only did so in reaction to the heavy handed tactics that were clearly being attempted by the government. And had they gotten away with it, would it now be the precedent for every BLM contested property dispute? Thank goodness for the 2nd amendment in which the citizens are permitted to bear arms to prevent tyrannies like this from escalating like they did in Waco and Ruby Ridge. Does anyone actually think the government would have backed down if there were not armed citizens on standby? The 1st amendment doesn't mean a thing without the 2nd amendment. We Americans, unlike much of the rest of the world, have a right to bear arms in self-defense of our person and property; thank goodness our 2nd amendment does not force us to show up with knives to a gun fight.

The situation is still fluid in Nevada and I will continue monitoring this situation closely. Although I might not blog about it again, I will still be tweeting about it and posting about it on Facebook. We would do well to remember that the government works for us, we do not work for the government. They are our servants, not our masters. Too many have forgotten this fact. We must persist in our efforts to remind them.

A Tale of Two Transactions

As some of you might have noticed by glancing over the 'About Me' section on the sidebar, my real job is working as a yacht stewardess, which I've been doing for the last eight years. I'm currently in the Bahamas where I've been for almost 2 months now (and which also explains the diminishing frequency of my posts cuz I've been busy y'all!) and have had two interesting and instructive recent interactions in the area of wages and commerce that I think we can glean some knowledge from.

**Scenario 1**
The first instance occurred today, actually. We have a trip coming up on Saturday and in our final preparations to get the boat super shiny and clean for the boss, we were looking for an extra hand. We told the dockmaster up front that we would pay $20/hour and to let whoever he sent our way to let him know in advance. A guy shows up a little while later and starts sizing up the boat, walking down the dock trying to gauge the length of it and counting the number of decks etc. Our first mate stopped him and let him know up front that we were paying $20/hour and that the dockmaster should have told him that up front before sending him down.

"Nah, nah man. How many decks you got? I get paid $2.50 a foot man", was this Bahamian's reply to our offer. Our boat is 130' feet so he wanted $325 for what could have been anything between 4 and 7 hours work, or apprx. $45-80 an hour.

"Sorry bro, $20 bucks an hour is what it is, take it or leave it."

Well, believe it or not, this Bahamian decided it wasn't worth it and turned down the work, deciding he would rather be unemployed for the day than to work for 6-7 hours at $20/hour and get a free lunch out of it too. We decided, based on prior experience, that most Bahamians, or any dayworker really, are not worth more than $20/hour and that we could manage the work on our own rather than employ someone for more than that.

**Scenario 2**
We've been experiencing some mechanical and electrical issues recently, nothing new on a boat, something's always broken. Being in the islands, it's really difficult to get reliable and quality help on some of these things. There is one electrician on the island and in the yachting community who has a reputation for being an EXCELLENT electrician and who is also reliable and hard-working. He knows this and therefore he knows he can charge an arm and a leg for his services. Recently, he was supposed to arrive at the boat at 8:30. An hour later he still hadn't arrive but did call our engineer and told him there was an emergency that he got called away to while he was en route to our job and that he would be there at 10am.

He showed up at 10am, as promised, and he and the engineer sorted out the problem by noon. He said his going rate was $80/hour and we owed him for 4 hours work.

"Four hours work? How did you come up with that?" asked our incredulous engineer.

"I charge for travel time to and from the boat. I left at 8am and finish at noon, that's four hours."

Nevermind that during his drive time he veered off to help another vessel. Nevermind that most people don't charge for drive time. He also casually informed our engineer that he's raising his rates to $120/hour in the near future. But, our engineer figured, he is the best electrician on the island, he did sort the problem out, and he has dropped everything and come and helped us in an emergency situation before too. Alright, $320 bucks it is then!

So what can we learn from these scenarios?

Value is Subjective

In scenario 1, for whatever reason, the Bahamian worker thought $20/hour was not enough to entice him away from whatever other stuff he could have been doing that day. Sort of like supermodel Naomi Campbell, he doesn't get out of bed for less than $300 a day apparently.

And from our end, we knew from experience that his productivity would not be worth more than $20/hour so we both mutually decided we would not go through with the transaction and both parties walked away, maybe somewhat disappointed, but overall no worse for the wear.

We didn't need some nameless, faceless government agency ruling over this interaction telling us that we MUST offer him more money or pay him a living wage or anything like that. Most of my American friends were shocked he turned that kind of money down, and we were too since it's not exactly raining jobs here in the Bahamas, but hey, that's his choice based on his own subjective set of values. No government interference (force) necessary.

In scenario 2, now we find a situation in which we did find it of value to pay the electrician his $80/hour AND go along with his four hours of work malarkey. He's got the market cornered and he knows it. Now, will we continue to use him knowing he's going to raise his rates to $120/hour? Hmm, maybe only in an emergency. We might find a better value hiring someone else moving forward, but that's our call. If the electrician's business drops off too much, he might lower his rate to find a better equilibrium, but that's his call.

Other electricians might also see him as an example and start emulating his work ethic (although you can't fake real knowledge and skill and consumers will notice that sooner or later) but if they're qualified as well they might start to eat into the electrician's business and might put market pressure on him to lower his rates. All these scenarios are okay and, once again, these are all things that are none of the government's business. Gotta love the free market!

What shouldn't happen is the government shouldn't give in to cries of any cabal of workers who might gang up on this shining star and demand price controls and equal workload or work pay regulations or force this guy to join a group of workers whereby they distribute the work fairly amongst them all. There are countless modern day and historical examples where government tries to interfere in the business environment to make it "fair" and supersedes the natural market forces that arise from two parties who are free to make business decisions that best suit each party mutually like in the above examples.

For politicians, though, really it boils down to pandering for votes. If a group of many workers is angry that one certain worker or one certain business is running circles around them and they petition the government to "do something", well the politician measures up how many votes he/she will receive to appease the "do something" crowd vs. the number of votes he/she will receive from allowing that person to continue operating as normal; usually the "do something" crowd has far more numbers on their side and so something "gets done" to the detriment of the other party. Either that or the politician has a connected friend in the industry and offers laws and regulations to benefit that connected friend in exchange for campaign donations, once again to the detriment of the other party. Gotta love democracy!

But I digress. I believe there are many other lessons to be learned from the above exchanges but for the sake of brevity, I'll end it here. I'd like to hear from you. Did you find anything instructive in either of those scenarios? If so, what?

**Update: After we sent away the dayworker from the first scenario, the dockmaster then ended up getting his son, who was probably about 20ish, to come over and help. He, obviously, was happy for the money and he did a good job for us too. Value is subjective.

The Morality of Liberty

When trying to make the case for liberty, there are myriad ways one can go about it. Most libertarians are staunch supporters of the Constitution and are typically well-versed in what our founding document says and what the Founders' interpretation of it should be. But somehow, when trying to make a Constitutional argument for or against policy X, liberals and conservatives alike have found a way to pervert the meaning and intent of the Constitution by picking and choosing the data that supports their narrative and ignoring the historical evidence that contradicts their opinion.

Likewise, when you try and provide documentary evidence to an ideological opposite that refutes their side's position, no matter how irrefutable the evidence the other side will always find a way to rationalize it away. Studies and statistics and even someone's own words are often no match for cognitive dissonance.

So how does one go about changing minds when someone is determined to ignore the evidence if facts and history can't even seem to do the job? While I think going from conservative to liberal or vice versa is fairly unlikely (although it does happen occasionally), I think libertarians have a much better chance of winning people over to our side. Why is that? Because morality is on our side.

When you have morality on your side, you don't have to have troves of historical texts and a PhD in Political Science to argue the nuances of each and every policy debate. All you have to do is look for the gun in the room. How can you tell if some new law one of our politicians has dreamed up is right, just, moral, and beneficial? Just ask yourself, how many guns have to be pointed at people to make this law happen?

Libertarians will argue that if a gun has to be pointed at someone to make them comply with a law (do not eat, drink, or smoke this, Citizen) then the law is unjust. There is a big difference between laws that uphold and protect personal property -- either your home, business, or your own person -- like laws against theft and murder, and laws that serve to modify behavior in a way that government deems acceptable. As modern day philosopher Stefan Molyneux likes to say, "The law is just an opinion with a gun."

Let's take just one example, and it's one that I've written about before: Obamacare. How many guns are required in order to enforce this law? Well, let's just name the most prominent, egregious ones (let's pretend that Obama hadn't unconstitutionally and unilaterally waived some of these mandates, we're just speaking philosophically here). There is the individual mandate, whereby an individual is forced to purchase a product they might not want or even need (health insurance) or face fines enforced by the IRS. If you don't buy the product, then the State has the right to confiscate some of your property from you using the bullying arm of the IRS. As of now, supposedly there is no further penalty for not paying the fine but who really wants to find out about such things?

Next comes the employer mandate where any business with over 50 people must provide health insurance for their full-time employees. There you have another issue of "force" whereby the government is now holding a gun to the head of business owners across America and saying "You will provide this service even if it is detrimental to your business model and bottom line." It is violating rather than protecting private property rights by substituting the will and judgement of the State and its actors for the judgement of the business owner.

Lastly, there are the coverage mandates that Obama administration has declared that each insurance policy must cover to some degree. These include things like: maternity care (you know, for the 65 year old men who have been doing without all these years), mental health, pediatric services (gay people of America, rejoice!), outpatient services, hospitalization, and a few more. So now the State is pointing guns at insurance companies dictating to them how to run their businesses as well. And with all this gun-waving going around, somewhere in the process over a million people lost their previous healthcare coverage.

That's the funny thing is that trying to achieve something through the use of force and violence almost always produces the opposite effect. Afterall, what's the difference between sex and rape? You can achieve the same result, but one requires time and effort to cultivate the sort of relationship that results in a consensual act. The other requires no nurturing of feelings, just the brute force of one person on another person in a violent, non-consensual manner causing severe physical, emotional, and psychological damage. Using violence to achieve one's means will almost always produce unintended or opposite results of what one is seeking.

This is where libertarians and voluntaryists part ways with their Democratic and, yes, even Republican brethren. Through their belief in the Non-Aggression Principle, those who believe in liberty recognize that the initation of force by an individual or someone acting on behalf of an individual (like a government) to be unjust and immoral. The position of liberty is the only moral position out there. It is the only position that does not profess to want to wave a bunch of guns in the face of citizens worldwide to force them to comply with their views. Do some see this as utopic? Sure. But it's no more utopic than the notion that if we can just wave enough guns in the face society through the creation of thousands upon thousands of laws and regulations then we will finally create equality and justice for all. If we are all striving for utopia, which utopia is the one more worth pursuing? The utopia based upon peaceful, voluntary relationships and interactions advocated for by libertarians and other liberty loving individuals and enabled through the free market? Or the utopia based on forced compliance at the hands of the State which needs armies of people in uniform and with guns and badges to enforce their will?

If you just look for the gun in the room, it becomes easy to refute all the various harebrained schemes our politicians throw out at us without having to become an expert on each and every law. All it requires is that you ask yourself a few basic questions: Does the law require the initiation of force on the part of the State? Does the law benefit one group of people at the expense of another group of people? Does the law require taking something from one person and giving it to someone else to whom it does not belong? Does the law interfere with voluntary relationships entered into by mutually consenting adults? If the answer to any of these questions is 'yes' then the law is unjust and it must be opposed.

While a society based upon voluntary and peaceful interactions will not be the perfect society as there will always be bad actors in any culture, it will still be an inherently more moral society than any society currently being dreamed up by the powers that be in the Congresses and Parliaments throughout the world. As Tacitus once said, "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws." And as we now know, the law is nothing but an opinion with a gun.

Life Got You Down? Blame Government

Are you happy? Are you satisfied with your job, making good money, have a loving family that you spend loads of time with, you're in perfect health, have no debt, got a good education, plenty of money in the retirement account, own a nice home that you're able to update semi-regularly, take vacations annually, and all the rest? I mean, that's the American dream, isn't it? The one we've been taught is achievable in America and nowhere else because of our grand, unrelenting commitment to freedom and individuality. Or are some or all of those areas lacking in your life?

I was thinking about it earlier and I'm quite certain that most of the discontent we experience in our lives can easily be found with its roots in government. There are some out there who think corporations are the world's greatest evil, but do corporations have as much influence over your day-to-day life as government does? Can corporations hold a gun to your head and make you pay for goods and services you don't want? Can corporations be absolutely inefficient, fail in their mandates and missions, lose money year after year, steal from you, fine you for not buying their products, violate your civil liberties and still count on you giving them your business? No, of course not. They have to earn your business. Government just points a gun at you and forces you to do business with them and on their terms only. That's not to say that there aren't bad corporations out there with evil business models, but once again that's because of government enabled cronyism. While businesses and corporations can cause minor hiccups in our day-to-day lives (ohmgygawd, I just spent 30 minutes on hold with Verizon #hearthisassholes), it's the ever-present leviathan of government hanging over our heads, like an eternally cloudy sky that you don't even notice anymore (but once you're "awake" you  notice it all the time), that causes us the most misery.

For example, are you or a family member sick or suffering from chronic pain and you can't get your hands on the drugs you need to treat it? That would be government's fault. Government is keeping marijuana, medicinal and otherwise, illegal and off market in many states. The FDA is the one holding up approval on potentially life-saving drugs, drugs that terminally ill patients are more than willing to risk their already dying lives to take in the hope that it might give them a few more precious months or, God-willing, years on this earth. The market is trying to bring life-saving drugs to the people who desire it at affordable prices. The only reason you can't have them is because of government laws, red tape, and regulations. Food and drug safety and efficacy can be proved by various private, competing entities and get safe drugs to market much faster than the several years-long process it takes for the FDA to complete its studies.

Moving on, what about your quality of life and finances? Are you happy in your job, following your dreams and passions? No? Why not start your own business? Maybe start small and work out of your home? Oh, because your local government regulations prevent home businesses? Hmm, well how about you become a professional of some sort? Oh, you don't have the right government licensing for your floral shop or interior design degree? Understandable. I can see why we need the government to protect us from the dangers of unlicensed florists and interior designers. Or from the horrors of a bad haircut. The stuff of nightmares really. Well why not go back to school to pursue that degree you've always wanted? Too expensive? Was that Amazon's fault, or Ebay's? Hmm, don't think so. When government will hand out or subsidize student loans for everyone with a pulse, it increases demand. The only way to satisfy demand and create equilibrium in the market is to raise prices. Rising prices means it's less affordable, so we need more student loans. Oh vicious circle! And many in government insist that we must make it our goal that every child in America receive a college degree. Because there's no better way to render something completely valueless than by making sure everyone has one. But if you still think that going into debt to get that online degree from Phoenix University that every Tom, Dick, and Harry is now trying to get will finally give you the leg up you've been looking for, be my guest. However, if it doesn't work, you know who to blame <whisper> government.

Have you taken your annual vacation this year? Full two weeks? No debt? Trying to figure out what exactly it is you're saving all that money for anyway? No? Walmart charging you too high of prices again so you can't save money? Or could it be something else.... You see, our government thinks it can control money. They think that they can solve all of our economic woes by printing money or otherwise manipulating the currency. You'll hear our politicians claim that inflation is a good thing. Government will tell you that rising prices makes everyone wealthier because, you know, I never feel richer than when I pay $4 for a gallon of gas that only cost $3 last year. Your home is worth more, but with that food prices keep rising, gas prices keep rising, the cost to heat and cool your home keep rising, but the price of iPads is falling so there's that. I hear they're quite tasty when baked and feed a family of four quite easily.

 Despite the constantly rising prices that you've been told make everyone wealthier, you can never quite figure out what happens to your paycheck each month. And while your home might be valued at $250k, you can't manage to sell it because who's able to save $50k for a nice, respectable 20% down payment? Nobody! But that's okay. Government to the rescue again! They'll subsidize agencies like Fannie and Freddie to give you a loan for as little as 3% down, no savings needed! What could possibly go wrong? Without government, who would force banks and other entities to give out loans to people to buy overpriced homes they can't afford? Wait, don't tell me...Walmart. Amiright?

Not only is your paycheck being eaten away by the insidious hidden tax known as inflation, it's also being eaten away by the never-ending string of overt taxes we're subject to. Sales tax, income tax, payroll tax, property tax, hotel tax, rental car tax, airfare tax, death tax, inheritance tax, capital gains tax, corporate tax, the not buying a product you don't want tax (aka Obamacare), excise tax, gasoline tax, utility taxes, telephone usage tax, cigarette tax, luxury tax, gift tax, gambling tax, lotto winning tax, IRA early withdrawal tax, vehicle sales tax, and on and on and on. Really, though, they're doing you a favor. The government steals this money from you and makes it harder to make ends meet each month because if they didn't you would probably spend it irresponsibly. It's much better that they spend it irresponsibly for you.

"But," you may say, "I'm willing to pay those taxes because I get important government goods and services in return." Like pothole free roads. And pleasant, stress-free visits to the DMV. And an easily navigable and affordable justice system that works for the little guy. And over 700 military bases all over the world. I'm sure if the government weren't stealing your money from you every two weeks you would willingly donate that money to the military bases in Germany and Japan that are so imperative to our safety. You can never be too safe, after all. Which is why I thank the Lord every time I go to the airport and get groped down, nude scanned, or irradiated that my money was taken from me forcibly to pay for my safe travels. Granted, they've never caught a single terrorist no matter how much money I give them but I'm sure it will pay off one day. Given how greedy corporations are, I know American Airlines and Southwest have zero interest in keeping their flights and passengers safe and therefore would not be willing to provide adequate security measures for their passengers; it would eat into their bottom line after all. Terrorists would just keep hijacking their planes and Jetblue would be all like "That's cool. Any publicity is good publicity, right?"

Don't even get me started on companies like Apple. How dare Apple invade countries like China and give those Chinese workers jobs they would never have had otherwise so that Americans can buy highly innovative and desirable products that have literally changed human life at reasonable prices!? If Apple were more like government, they would have invaded China with the Apple Army they keep on retainer, destroyed Chinese cities to build their factories (for which the Chinese should be grateful), used their Army to take out all competition, and then hired a bunch of union workers to charge $20/hr to work no more than 8 hours a day so that in 10 years time they could sell you a phone the size of your shoe for $5000 and then balked at you if you weren't grateful to them because if it weren't for them you wouldn't have a portable phone at all dontchyaknow?

I could do this all day, but stop for a moment and just think about it. Who controls the money? Government. Who controls interest rates on money? The Federal Reserve. Who determines the type of currency we use? Government. Who prints the money that causes inflation? The Federal Reserve. Who forcibly takes money away from us to pay for things we don't want (and maybe a few things we do)? Government. Who controls your education? Government. Who controls your food? Government. Who controls your healthcare? Government. Who controls your retirement? Government. Let's not even think about this in the left/right paradigm. These things are true no matter which party is in power and have been for half a century now or more. It's time to wake up. It's time to open your eyes. It's time to see what's really going on here. It's time to join the revolution. As Katniss Everdeen was told in book 2 of The Hunger Games: Catching Fire as she was battling for her life against her competitors in the Capital-controlled games, "Remember who the real enemy is." I promise you it's not Walmart.       

 

The 'D' Word...

One of the most misunderstood and controversial positions of libertarianism is the freedom of (dis)association. The PC buzzword for it is now 'discrimination'. This has been popping up more and more recently, primarily in regards to news items about private businesses "discriminating" against gays. In Kansas, for example, their House passed a bill allowing businesses to discriminate against gays based on religious grounds. The bill died in the senate just days later but not before major media networks picked up on it and created a frenzy among gay rights advocates and supporters thereof.

Just on its heels comes another major piece of state legislation up for approval in Arizona which asserts almost the same rights as the bill in Kansas, that businesses can deny service to gays based upon religious grounds. This bill is currently awaiting approval or veto from Governor Jan Brewer. 

Such legislation has been the result of a few high-profile cases of businesses discriminating against gay customers, like the cake baker who refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple or the innkeepers in the U.K. who wouldn't let any unmarried couples, gay or straight, occupy the same room.

Let me be clear, I am not anti-gay. I gave monthly donations to the Human Rights Campaign for over a year before having to cut back due to finances. I favor allowing adoption for gay couples. I am in support of gay marriage. That being said, I also believe in private property rights and free speech. Private property entails being able to do what you please with your own property, including inviting (or not) people of your choosing to visit or do business with you.

Would anyone condemn a black store owner who refused to do business with a skinhead? I don't think so. Why is it okay for the skinhead to be denied service but not a gay person? Recently, acquitted killer cop Manuel Ramos, who was found not guilty for the savage beating death of a mentally ill homeless man, was forced out of a restaurant by fellow patrons. In response to the legislation in Arizona, some storefronts are posting signs reserving the right to refuse service to Arizona legislators. George Zimmerman is assuredly not welcome at many establishments he might like to frequent. There should be no problem with any of this. Each of these businesses has the right to discriminate against the skinheads, George Zimmermans, legislators, saggy pants wearing teens, or gay people of the world. Government's only role in any of this should be to enforce the rights of people to use their private property how they see fit.

Do I agree with the discriminatory practices of denying gays service? Of course not. But I do defend the right of people to conduct their business according to their beliefs. Much like Voltaire famously said, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I will also defend the rights of the consumer to boycott, petition, write negative reviews, or otherwise inform people of the discriminatory practices of these businesses. No government action is required.

Art Carden explains it another way in his article about this same topic. In his words,

"Calling on government to purify others' hearts and minds opens Pandora's box, pushes us farther down a very slippery slope, and invites all sorts of other hackneyed cliches. I hope that people find discrimination on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation, physical "handicaps," and other arbitrary criteria morally repugnant. I do. However, my disapproval of another's attitude does not give me the right to use force to correct their erroneous ways. Indeed, it may backfire."

Precisely. What proponents of anti-discrimination laws are really calling for is for men with badges and guns to force others to accept the beliefs, ideas, or values of someone else. Forcing others to believe the same as you do through government's monopoly of force is not the best way to deal with people with irrational beliefs. Art Carden summed up his article like so,

"When we use force to restrict others' liberty, we endanger our own.
Governments coerce others with a two-edged sword: giving the state the power to do things you like necessarily requires giving the state the power to do things you don't like, and giving the state the power to restrict behavior of which you don't approve gives them the power to restrict behavior of which you do approve. The right way to change hearts and minds is not coercion. It is persuasion."

One final point about all this, and I will hat tip one of my favorite interweb figures, The Libertarian Homeschooler (find her on Facebook here, her blog can be found here, she is on Instagram @thelibertarianhomeschooler, but alas is not on Twitter yet despite my pleas). When we ban something, be it a substance or a behavior, all we do is drive that behavior underground and out of sight. It doesn't mean that behavior is eliminated. It just becomes secret and when it becomes secret, it can't be addressed either in society or in the market. Let's put it this way, wouldn't you rather know up front that you're dealing with a bigot and make the decision yourself to do or not do business with that person? Or would you rather unknowingly subsidize their bigotry by still giving them money because they have to keep their idiotic thoughts to themselves? I would prefer to knowingly vote with my dollars and give my money to non-bigots than unknowingly give it to bigots. Bigots also have the right to not want to accept money from people who wish to do business with them in exchange for services.

We all discriminate all day, every day for various reasons and based on dozens of criteria, not all of them rational. Nay, it's the only way to base a decision. Walter Block contends in his book The Case for Discrimination that "...discrimination -- choosing one thing over another -- is an inevitable feature of the material world where scarcity of goods and time is the pervasive feature. There is no getting around it. You must discriminate, and therefore you must have the freedom to discriminate, which only means the freedom to choose. Without discrimination, there is no economizing taking place." We pass by various store fronts and either decide to shop there or not based on the silliest reasons: the font of their store front, the neighborhood it's in, a friend of a friend of a friend said her aunt's hair dresser had a bad experience there. Heck, I'm amazed to see work trucks that have political bumper stickers on them. Passing by certain trucks I do think to myself "Gee, I guess I know who not to do business with now, clearly they're a bunch of dumbasses." Is that right of me? Probably not. But I'd bet dollars to donuts that we've all had crazy thoughts like that and have made decisions based on far less of criteria. Should we all go to jail or be fined?

I would prefer to live in a society where we can openly talk about these things and engage our neighbors in peaceful attempts to change hearts and minds instead of driving the problem underground. Will it end bigotry? Unfortunately not. But neither will enacting laws that essentially amount to thoughtcrime that must be enforced by the modern day equivalent of the Thought Police. In the end, we must decide whether discrimination is an issue that we would rather be decided in the public sphere by government, whose only tool of persuasion is the barrel of a gun, and the necessary increase in power it gives to government which can and will be used against us all one day, or whether we think we as a society can be trusted to do the right thing on our own and slowly, yet peacefully learn to exercise tolerance for those who are different from us.