The War Boom Fallacy

There is a persistent fallacy that is used by people in terms of economic thought and practice. The War Boom Fallacy is The Broken Window Fallacy used to try and explain War Time economics. Under the theory war brings jobs, production and wealth to workers and producers. At its base is the assumption that ALL things produced in War or for War are needed. War being described as the engine for new prosperity and returned wealth gains not only for the individual workers but also for the State through higher tax rates. Economists have long warned that war is not a driving force behind the building of capital but the greatest destroyers of capital. This fallacy has been used for decades following the great depression and the ending of World War 2 and again when used to explain lower unemployment numbers during the Bush years in office. 

This piece by Jeffrey Tucker in 2004 puts into detail the War Boom Fallacy.

"FEE.org caught this revealing piece from the Washington Post: “Across America, War means Jobs”

 In this corner of a critical presidential-election battleground state, the economy is surging with the urgency of a boom. But it wasn’t President Bush’s tax cuts, Federal Reserve interest rate policies or even a general economic turnaround that did the trick. It was war.
In the first three months of this year, defense work accounted for nearly 16 percent of the nation’s economic growth, according to the Commerce Department. Military spending leaped 15.1 percent to an annualized rate of $537.4 billion, up from $463.3 billion in the comparable period of 2003, when Bush declared major combat operations in Iraq over. …
It is impossible to know how many of the 708,000 jobs created in the past three months are defense-related, since the Labor Department does not track defense contractor employment. But anecdotal evidence suggests the contribution is significant….
In inflation-adjusted terms, the war’s cost will surpass the United States’ $199 billion share of World War I sometime next year. Coming on top of three major tax cuts, that spending will drive the federal budget deficit to more than $400 billion this year. That borrowing will eventually have to be repaid in higher taxes or reduced government services and benefits.
Economists have long argued that war is an inefficient use of government revenue. A dollar spent on a highway not only employs workers but also creates a lasting, broadly shared benefit for the economy. A dollar spent on military equipment is soon lost to enemy attack or the rapid wear of war. If it bought a bomb or bullet, it simply explodes.The families of thousands of National Guard members and reservists have been dealt severe financial blows by the extended deployments of breadwinners…."

The frenetic activity is repeated all over the country. New kilns in California bake ceramic body-armor plates. Apparel plants in Arkansas, Alabama, Florida and Puerto Rico struggle to keep up with uniform orders. Once-idle textile mills in South Carolina spin rugged camouflage fabric. Army depots operate 24/7 to repair and rebuild the wreckage of war in time to ship it back with the next troop deployment.

Many of the younger adults and children are being feed this fallacy and are accepting it without question, aided by Public and Private school curriculum and professed by Economists of the Keynesian School like Paul Krugman. Krugman uses this fallacy without delay in defense of war time spending and stimulus spending by government. He goes even so far as to joke (at least that is what I hope he was doing) that to aid in a recovery from the slump driven by the ever long Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, a housing market collapse and a tanking Wall Street,an Alien Invasion, even if false, would jump start the machines of war and the country and it's economy would be saved.

In Mid 2011 Krugman was a guest on CNN's  "Fareed Zakaria GPS"

"If we discovered that, you know, space aliens were planning to attack and we needed a massive buildup to counter the space alien threat and really inflation and budget deficits took secondary place to that, this slump would be over in 18 months," he said. "And then if we discovered, oops, we made a mistake, there aren't any aliens, we'd be better--"
"We need Orson Welles, is what you're saying," Rogoff cut in.
"There was a 'Twilight Zone' episode like this in which scientists fake an alien threat in order to achieve world peace," Krugman said. "Well, this time, we don't need it, we need it in order to get some fiscal stimulus."

 Krugman and the Keynesian School Economists who favor this fallacy fail to recognize the fact that as War Produced goods are built and destroyed products built outside of this false demand are what are wanted by consumers rather than required for war time measures. The theory is as if to say that to stimulate an economy citizens should burn their clothes once a year and replace them, this of course would lead to a rise in demand for clothes but at the expense of savings for other wants and needs, this false demand being used as an example would be fit if not for the thousands of other markets that would be wanting this policy in place to support a false demand for their products, we would see the annihilation of virtually every good in the name of economic steadiness and security. Carpenters not doing well, burn the houses and stores. Auto Industry sluggish, force people to crush their cars once every few years.So on and so on until every good becomes disposable by mandate and is done so to fabricate and support an economic lie.

The War Boom Fallacy or known better as the Broken Window Fallacy brought to us by Frederic Bastiat (The Law) and reaffirmed by Henry Hazlitt (Economics In One Lesson) is a leading factor in the US economy due to it's military budgets and affairs around the world. This act of destruction of goods to strengthen an economy is ridiculous in theory and practice yet is still the most taught fallacy to students through public education. I say to these students and teachers alike, burn your books, your clothes, your beds and backpacks, smash your computers, TVs, your cell phones, in the name of a fallacy you hold to be true, destroy your goods and wait for the stimulus and economic boom to kick you in the rear.

A great paper on the numbers and stats of the "General Discussion of Pre and Post WW2 economics" can be found here. Authored by David R. Henderson this working paper lays out the numbers of the myth and dispels false impulses with clear understanding.

Also look into the Great Myths of the Great Depression by Lawrence Reed, found here, these two essays can be the starting point to your own understanding of the Broken Window fallacy redressed as a War Boom Fallacy.

Did Imperialism, Radicalism and Nationalism cause the Benghazi Tragedy?

What do we really know about The Benghazi Incident (not a scandal)? Could it have been prevented? Could the foreign policy and war hawking have been a factor? What are the main factors that lead to the deaths of 4 American Government workers? Are these deaths the consequences of a failed policy and retribution for intervention? How do the “Radicals” on both sides of this issue fuel the fire and promulgate the cause beyond this incident? Can a deep held Nationalism and Imperialism be to blame, at least partially?

The lives of J. Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone S. Woods and Glen Doherty were added to the statistical sheets and lists of names of those killed by the actions of the government they worked for. Their own actions contributing to their deaths.

Empire building is paid for by the blood of its citizens.

In empires the cost of expansion has always been monetary and lives. The monetary losses are inherent due to an ever expanding use of resources to fulfill land, power or military gains. It goes without saying that Fiat currency and its value manipulation aid in this matter. It is the human losses that are taken the hardest and rightfully so. The deaths of men and women who have been led to believe they are doing a service to the civilian population at home are justified under the rules of war and the guise of a better tomorrow. The lives of these four men were not the first in this long line of death attributed to government’s interventionist policies and empire building. Though you will not hear it on the political “news” commentary these consulate and embassy attacks happened during the prior Presidential Administration as well, from January 22, 2002 to September 17, 2008 there were 13 separate attacks on US buildings resulting in the death of many and injuring many more. Some will say that these deaths were mostly not Americans and that they should not count as the same, but I say this, how is one life or one attack different than another. A US diplomat, David Foy died as a result of an embassy attack in 2006, where is this in the media today? It’s not there because it has no bearing on the sensationalism of the story today, right now, in your face rhetoric redirecting from the factual past and skewing the point. That point being that this isn't a partisan issue, it’s a policy issue. It is the act of intervention that keeps enemies at our gates. It is the act of intervention that breeds hate and contempt. It is this intervention that costs us one of the most basic natural resources we have, the human being.

We have radicals on all sides.

I hear this all the time, “If it weren't for those radical _____ (insert religious term of your choice) none of this would have happened” Well that’s one way of saying it. Let’s try another, “If the American war radicals weren't so keen to blow up things around the world…” Get it? There are radicals on all sides of this issue. We have radical Pro-Military people screaming to nuke the world. We have radical religious people who claim their religion is the only one allowed and all others must not be allowed to survive. (Don’t think I am just pointing at the Islam faith, Christians pull the same stunts). There are the interventionist radicals and the empirical radicals just the same, shouting for their blood baths and land and power grabs, urging on the utter annihilation of complete civilizations and religions.

The thing is if we didn't have all these radicals screaming for their favorite way of dealing with things all dealing with death and destruction of some sort or another, maybe we could have a rational and logical discussion on the affairs of the world. But maybe I’m just hopeful. Maybe I am just a radical Peace Monger, I just don’t see the rational to defy reason and subvert logic for a gain of temporary peace and faux respect.

Nationalism is a horrid disease of the brain.

Albert Einstein said it best of Nationalism, He says

"Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind."

And dammit if he isn't right.

It is a disease, a curable disease at that. Inject some knowledge, a little understanding, a few shots of philosophy and it can change the world. Nationalism really is a hard thing to beat, mainly because most people do not see it as a negative thing. They see “Love of country”, National Flags, Pledges of allegiances, our colors and stripes; they claim superiority and greatness arrogantly and erroneously. Exceptionalism is a word they like to throw around a lot. But are they really exceptional? Are they really great? Are they really superior? How do they fill these claims, by what measure?

Let’s think about it this way, the Nation you were born into, you did not pick it and it did not pick you, by some cosmic happenstance you are where you are and not somewhere where you accept bombing to rubble, on the other side of that is those people that are in the place you are destroying and through that same cosmic happenstance they are being murdered and displaced because of that placement. That doesn't sound too much like a good thing. What if it were reversed, would you accept your fate because you are in a place that others see fit to destroy or invade? Would you feel the same if your home were burned or bombarded, if your family were killed, or you were targeted by drone bombing all because of the geographical location you are in? Nationalism has killed more innocent people than almost any other belief in the history of man. Hitler and Mao used Nationalism to subject millions to the will of Socialism and Dictatorship. The Northern States used Nationalism to carry out a Civil war and subject free individual states to an all-encompassing never ending contract of subservience.  The United States, along with other nations, is using Nationalism again to justify homicide around the globe.

Benghazi wasn't an isolated incident, and it wasn't a scandal, hell I even say it wasn't a surprise. It was a response to the policies and procedures, the mindsets and arrogance Americans show the world. If it be said that justifying an act such as this is on the national security interests of a nation than this is no more an attack than invading Iraq or Afghanistan was. If it be said that the radicals were to blame, then we can say yes, radical nationalists on both sides are to blame. If we are to say that the price of an expanding empire is paid by the blood of its citizens then these four men have paid that price, and there will be more to come.  

The investigation that is and will be taking place in the coming months and years will produce no tangible results, it will not alter policy or procedure, it will not halt the footsteps into a world war, it will not affect the outcome of imperialism, nationalism or radicalism in any nation. The investigation will not lead to arrests of those who perpetrated the act; at best a drone will fly overhead and destroy the entire village they may be staying in, without regard for the innocent lives it will destroy.  No this investigation is a sham; it is a waste of time and ultimately tax payers money.

Benghazi wasn't a single act of terrorism; it was the partial culmination of bad policy and even worse judgment.  These men were not heroes; they are statistics of the loss of lives due to government policy of world domination and world policing. 

Lest We Never Learn A Lesson

Memorial day is here again. A day set aside by the government to acknowledge all the troops who have died in service to the government, to remember their sacrifice to uphold the want of the expanding empire and to ensure domestic tyranny is broadcast internationally. A day to recognize those that protected opium fields in Afghanistan, oil fields in Iraq and Kuwait, who intervened in matters not involving them. A day to yell "support our Troops, just don't allow them to come home!" This is a day that people get their panties wet for the stars and stripes and all of the men and women, sometimes children that have been killed in duty to the Government of the United States. That sounds a bit harsh doesn't it? Think about it though, is it true? Do these service members serve you, or do they serve the government? When was the last time your orders to the "Nation's Service Members" was answered? 

Smedley Butler, one of the most decorated US Marines penned this essay "War is a Racket".

"WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

In the World War [I] a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.

How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?"

Continued here.

Butler saw this after his years in service and this was written as a warning leading up to World War 2. He saw that through war peace is not ventured towards but thrust aside like a broken toy by a child. Butler wrote his feelings of despair for this nation and all others so conceived to annihilate others for the interest of the governments in control. "So...I say, TO HELL WITH WAR! 

Lest We Forget

There are a lot of reasons people adore this day. Maybe a family member or friend died in the struggles of war, maybe a person lost friends, brothers, or even their own sanity, fighting for a lie, deceit and ultimately what was never to be had.  I have always questioned the motives of soldiers. you would ultimately have to agree with the ways in which the system works to be a part of it, in any capacity.  Why have you resigned your self to die or to kill based on any amount of information? Why have you sign away not only your life but every right to your own body? Why have you allowed a few people who call themselves your government dictate what you will do, who is your enemy, who is allowed to live and who must die? Why have you let your mind be deceived to belief the great lie that stifles peace and breeds more war?

What if we did forget? What if we have forgotten how to be humans by being brutal savages to others? What if we have forgotten the value of life? What if we have forgotten how to be civilized and how to resolve differences without force, without killing one another.

I say we have forgotten. And damned if anyone is willing to stop and think, maybe the way to peace isn't in dropping bombs, it isn't in destroying villages halfway around the world but by working towards peaceful ends to mutual problems. I am called idealistic, Utopian, a dreamer to think that people in other lands would be interested in peace with us. Well no, I don't suppose after generation after generation has grown to be controlled by this country, threatened and harmed by this country they would very much like to resolve to peace, it is the bed our government and their strong-armed subservient drones have made for the rest of us to lie in along side them.

 Lest we Forget

This day is set aside to remember those who have died in duty to their government. But what do we do to remember those that have died because of our government soldiers. What of the Vietnamese villagers killed at the hands of our troops? What of the Syrians, the Kuwaitis, the Iraqis, Koreans, what of all those killed by policies set by our government and enforced by their troops? Have you ever set to think about those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice for those that claim to pay a sacrifice? It is the subjective value of life that is a real hurdle for some to get over? The ability for some to value the life of one person over that of another and to justify their death in relation to some unknown and unseen meter of safety in on country over another. In all instances life is lost, it is the real test of a personal philosophy to drop this hypocritical value of life.

Lest We Never Learn A Lesson

What will this nation and all other nations be if they never learn form the horrors of war?  What is to become of children brought up in a perpetual state of hate for foreigners? What is to be said of the eternal conflict between lands, waging battle after battle until but a few peoples remain to be enslaved by the larger of surviving regimes? What if we never learn our lesson?

Remembering and Honoring are two different things.

I can remember my grandfather and his stories of the Korean War he served in. I can remember his talks with me about his sacrifice and his realization of what it was worth. I can remember him telling me about the blood transfusion after being shot and the lifetime struggle with the disease it left him. I can remember him telling me to not honor his service but to remember that sometimes it isn't worth losing yourself to gain a few dollars. I can remember the day we put him in the ground. No flag draped casket, no military band, No folded flag, no mention of military honors, not because he had none but because that wasn't who he was, it was just what he did and what he had to live with and regret.

If you want to remember the troops, bring them home. Shut down the military industrial complex, shut down the 300 bases in 190 countries, stop fueling future conflicts with hate for prior ones, stop sending men to kill and die for a corrupt government and stop trying to impose a tyrannical empire over the world for the blood lust of those who claim superiority and control.

Minimum Wage Law

The Minimum Wage hurts both businesses and workers alike in that it takes away the right of them both to come to mutually beneficial terms of employment. Below is a recent conversation I had with the Manager of a local grocery chain. As I explain how the minimum wage laws hurt the contracts between company and workers, it also fails to allow services to be rendered at a rate of agreement and forces businesses to comply with rules and laws, mandates and edicts of government agencies that are not present at the time or place. 

Me: Hello I wanted to find out if you were hiring at the moment.
Store Manager (SM): We take applications and fill spots according to the need.
Me: Great, I noticed the parking lot was full of shopping carts and wanted to offer my services for retrieving those carts. I assure you my rate would be sufficient and according to the skills involved.
SM:Your rate?
Me: Yes sir you see I would willingly accept $4 per hour until the job was complete or until a specified time had passed, your decision,
SM: Oh no we cannot do that, that is well below the Minimum Wage set by law, I am sorry but there is no way.
Me: Would you deny me to make any wage simply on an edict of a federal and state agency that is not present at this time or place?
SM: Sir, there is nothing I can do, they set the rate at which I am supposed to pay employees.
Me: And is that fair to either you or the employee? I ask, if I were to say that $4 per hour is what it would cost to have my services, which are needed by the state of your parking lot, and that wage would sufficiently support myself, why then would you deny me a chance to use my skills to earn a wage simply on the arbitrary and unfair rule that takes away the right of companies and employees to come to mutually beneficial terms of employment?
SM: It may not be fair but that is the law and this company will not skirt the law in order to hire cheaper labor.
Me: The company willingly gives away it's right to mutually beneficial terms of employment contracts on the will of a government office that is not present, leaving customers swerving to miss your shopping carts, and then you can deny a man who offers services to help not only you but your customers the ability to earn a wage that is fair and agreeable?
SM: Sir, I am sorry I cannot help you in your search for temporary employment, rules and laws are there for the protection of the people...
Me: Excuse me sir but how then is the minimum wage law helping either me or you in this instance?
SM: Well it isn't in this instance but what you are asking is not normal, a low wage for work is almost unheard of.
Me; I assure you my decision on that number is equal to the amount of skill I have in the matter compared to the time it would take to do the job and given the need for the service the wage seems more than fair, wouldn't you agree?
SM: Well yes but that isn't the point, the point is that we cannot have you on the books at that wage...
Me: Fantastic, I will work for cash money, that would insure neither the company nor I would have to pay taxes on that money, what a fantastic idea.
SM: Sir, No we cannot do that.
Me: Why not, it was your idea. Let me be completely honest, I didn't come in here to bother you with all of this, I just wanted to see how the common company would refuse a person a wage on the edicts of a government agency, against the better judgement and benefits of both parties. I thank you for your time. Good afternoon.
SM: Good afternoon to you as well.

Right to Life and the Right to Die: Rethinking what that means.

What does it mean to be Pro-Life? In the popular definition it is the protection of life, usually meant in the ways of protecting an unborn child from the choice of abortion. I wrote previously about that choice as I see it as the individual rights of the mother and father to make that choice up to a defined and measurable heartbeat of the fetus. But what I want to talk about is not about the choice of abortion or even the choice of being Pro-Life. What I aim to highlight is a discrepancy I see in the train of thought of some of those that claim to hold a Pro-Life moral philosophy. It is without a doubt a worthy venture to protect human life, and I do not see anything wrong with that philosophy, what I do see though is certain disconnects in the Pro-Life mindsets of some people I have conversed with recently.

I make the case that if you are Pro-Life for the life of a child you should carry that philosophy all the way through the life of the individual. This would be a consistent and principled stance in the protection of life in all instances, rather than an exclusionary and emotional response.

 Three areas I see in conflict with this proposed philosophy are (1) the approval and endorsement of acts of war and violence in certain circumstances and under the guise of government acts or employ, (2) calling for death penalties and the lifelong incarcerations of individuals, and (3) has to do more with the choices within the timeline of life and the ultimate choice in life that some take is to voluntarily end theirs, the ability to live a life they see fit without hindrance or opinionated laws restricting them.

Can you be Pro-Life and Pro-Death?

The war screams and pro-military intervention crowds really confuse me. These groups seem to be made up more from people who hold a Pro-Life stance, odd as that might be. It’s as if the concept of death escapes by some sort of justification or moral high ground. It is this missed concept that confuses me. If one holds a belief that life should be protected and nourished, then it should stand to apply across the board, that ALL life be protected. Unfortunately it is, in the minds of many, exclusionary, it holds an asterisk* to the end of a sentence, it includes only those that the believer holds as superior or more important in having this life that is protected. If the Pro-Life believers were true to their claimed philosophy they would be against all forms of killing, whether in the employment of a government or not. As governments around the world push harder and harder to either remain sovereign or to remain in their place of self-indulging and self-proclaimed superiority they employ forces of individuals to do their deeds. In these deeds is often the chance to either kill or be killed while serving. As a supporter of a mindset that all life should be protected, these acts should be overwhelmingly opposed by the Pro-Life individuals. But what is reality? Reality is a far cry from a firm stance on that philosophy.

In the same vein of military the increasing amount of cases of death at the hands of police should be noted as a discrepancy as well. For too long now we have seen the ever increasing brutality of the world’s police forces, for too long now these killings by police officers have gone somewhat hidden or unnoticed by the public. Not so much anymore. With the rise in technology in cellphones the capability to take video and to make it public instantly has become a nuisance to police and a help to those who call for accountability and transparency. The act of killing a person in the line of duty has long been associated with the job description of police officers, and there are many reasons why this is so, but this should not give them unrestrained abilities to murder without recourse. This should not give them amnesty in the eyes of justice. It should not grant them the blindness and permit to take life from the Pro-Life believers.  If it is wrong for one to kill it is equally wrong for every other person no matter what clothes you wear, no matter what taken not granted authority you claim to have.

Can you be Pro-Life and Pro-Death Penalty?

The Death Penalty has been a mainstay of execution methods for well over 100 years in the US. It is without a doubt the second most controversial discussion of social order aside from abortion. It comes from a line of thought that states and federal governments should have the legal authority and moral judgment to adjudicate a person to die by various means in government run institutions. Looking at some polls and opinion survey results from different groups and institutions it seems Americans in particular are keen to the death penalty and see it as a moral means to the subjective idea of social justice. In the comment sections of local and national news I see daily comments that support the state’s ability to kill a person for a transgression it was not harmed in; unless we count the case of murder as an act of taking a revenue source from the state as the act that which is being punished. In the minds of these commenters there is the ability to convey an idea that justifiable murder can take place in the case of agents or agencies of the government committing the act. Like the other instances of the discrepancy in the line of thought of Pro-Life thinkers, can you really claim to protect a life in one circumstance and reject this thought in another? Can you say that humans can lose the ability or favor of being important enough to be spared from death? At what point would a person lose this ability? Can one re-gain the lost ability or favor by any means; repentance, restitution, admitting guilt and wrongdoing? Can one ever regain the protection of their life?

The difference in being Pro-Life and being Pro-Living.

Many people I have talked to have a thought that Pro-Life is only the idea to protect the actual life from being destroyed, but what about the act of living that life, what about the actions and choice in that life? Shouldn’t those also be protected from interference and hindrance? What if the action or choice was so out of the norms that it goes against the position of being Pro-Life but is in line with being free to make decisions for one-self? What if a person’s choice was to voluntarily end their own life? I know suicide is a not too talked about topic in the right to life or Pro-Life circles, but does it not conclude that the right to life would also include the right to end that life by choice? In my personal opinion this choice cannot be made for another person, as well as it cannot be stopped by any person. The right to life and the right to live a free life includes a right to cease to live. Voluntary removal from the situation and circumstance too big to handle for some is nothing new, it should neither be banned nor openly endorsed, it is a choice and rightfully should be made only by individuals. This is the case of protecting the act of living over the act of life itself, the act of making choices rather than living by someone else’s standards, the act of remaining free over remaining caged by societal norms and traditions.  

I know this seems in contradiction to what I have written above, but consider a new way of looking at the issue of life. Being alive does not guarantee happiness, it does not guarantee equality, it does not afford us fairness and sometimes that is just too much for someone to take. The act of protecting a life may in the best case be to let it go.  To let the choice be made and to exit in the time, place and situations they may choose. So in the end the position to be Pro-Life must at some times be to be Pro-Choice. It must sometimes be to embrace the act of death for one to live a life worth living.

Right to Life and Pro-Life labels being thrown around leaves a lot to be defined.  Let this be my contribution to the thought of what it can mean to be Pro-Life in all instances, what it means to take a serious, principled stance for the protection of life under all circumstances. 

Are you really being Represented?

Do you feel that those Senators, Representatives and Presidents holding office and making decisions for 317 million people have your best interests in mind?

Do you think they are representing you in the best possible way?

I asked these questions to a co-worker the other day. His response was a shoulder shrug and a somewhat resentful "No, Not really".

So in response I said, "So why do you continue to support a system that you admit is faulty?"

He gave me the greatest response, the most thought out response I could asked for..... Are you ready for it????

"It's the best system we have."


O RLY NOW?!?!

In the call for representation many people lose the fact that the representation they seek should not diminish the accountability and responsibility of those they place in their steed.

In a series of questions I will ask Are you really being represented, Are these the opinions and actions you would have taken had you no person claiming to represent you? Are these all things you would have imposed onto your neighbors and friends, your family and co-workers?


Would you impose the collection of information and communications of the worlds citizens?

Would you impose to extort those you love and those you do not know of the money they have earned?

Would you use that extorted money to send to others, to disperse to others?

Would you imprison others for growing a plant?

Would you restrict the travels of individuals based on regulations, restrictions and rulings that limit and inhibit individual rights?

Would you station your own rule enforcers on other people properties?

Would you use force to extract resources on others properties in order to run monopolies in your own favor?

Would you vow to imprison individuals that spoke out against your will and actions?


More questions to ponder...

As individuals living in a cooperative state, without the central plans and impositions of a government would the limitless and ever expanding regulations and stipulations that hinder and starve out the peaceful lives of others be so extensive?

Would the type of fear filled world, the extensive violations of the natural rights of those individuals be so wide spread?

Would we, as individuals, impose these same rules that the select few of self important leeches of public funding that are reinforced and reconstituted by ignorant and indoctrinated mass of loyal followers?

Can a better world be viable, is it possible without these so called representations of democratic rule, the will of a majority by the silence of the minority?

What are you paying for?

The raging wildfires in California brought up a unique point to my wife and she asked me to expound on it here.

When the people of this nation are extorted for billions of their hard earned dollars every year, when they are forced to pay the privilege of subservience, there is some level of belief that the funds they are paying in are going to be used for somewhat basic needs and variable necessities. But what if it doesn't? What happens when everything you thought you were funding is actually a farce? What is to be made of the fact that even for that belief in the priorities of the government your money is not being used in the ways it is advertised to you? What happens when a person is further hurt by the inefficiencies of government and their misuse of money?

Taking the recent wildfires raging in California as an example. The people whose homes are on the edge of destruction are probably expecting some sort of government intervention based on the money they have been forced to pay for services currently held in monopoly by the state and local government. But what is happening? The fire departments are deciding which homes to save and which ones to overlook. So who decides on the triage status of these properties? Who gets to decide if a home is to be saved or allowed to be destroyed? How should those people who have paid for a protectionist service such as a fire department be compensated for the inability of the department to provide the service they are intended for? What recourse do those that have now paid for services, and not received appropriate actions from these mandatory services, really have?

The same can be said of police departments and their "services". If a man is injured or killed and has paid for these protectionary  government agencies, what now happens to reclaim losses or injuries? The agency has obviously not performed a duty right? The police slogan being to protect and serve, the first mentioned duty as protectors has not been provided. In the instance of a man being robbed, the police are in most cases called after the act has taken place, these crimes go mostly unsolved as clues can not or will not (willfully) not be found. A great deal of what police officers do are what is known as reactionary measures. This means that police by and large do not stop crime from happening but merely respond after a crime has been committed. They try to recreate a scene and to collect information to further an investigation of the matter. This leaves people to still be victims and no recourse for the inability of police to "stop" crime from happening. Now this problem could be solved by the hiring of a private security force, to dispel any threats against the life and property of a contracted client. Mostly wealthy individuals choose this route as their preferred choice, knowing that in the instant a threat is made their personal protection agency and its enforcers are there to act. So what happens if a private security firm fails in their actions. The contract, if written to include clauses, could provide all recourse measures, including recuperation of monetary losses.  


It is a failure of government that highlights the free market alternative for fire and police services. In a world where people are free to choose their own protection and not be forced to submit authority or be extorted for money to fund mandatory services, a market of competing and cooperating companies is possible. Think of a service that includes the service of fire suppression and prevention for a fee, by contract and with means to collect losses if they occur. Think of a service that allowed person to hire security forces for themselves and to also collect looses on the occasion of breach of contracts or failure to provide adequate services to the contract holder. This is not so out of the ordinary or far fetched, it is simply a new way to look at the choices, preferences and right of association and contracts of free people and free markets. All the services currently held in monopoly by government can be provided in a market without the use of force or coercion.

Do No Harm... Even against Police.

I have been seeing stories lately dealing with persons or groups of people targeting police officers for physical altercations. I am against this as a trend and I wanted to take a moment to explain why. No I do not have a soft spot for the police. No I do not secretly work for a Law Enforcment agency. It is on principle of the axiom of Do No Harm. In essence the Non-Aggression Principle in action. If it is not in self defense or the defense of another it is violence, unjust, uncalled for and equally wrong in comparison to the actions in which police officers often use.

For those stories I have seen or heard lately some have been in response to prior events not dealing with the person or group that is making the attack on the officer(s).
One such case is a story of a woman who was tased by an officer while handcuffed. Other officers looked on and allowed this person to be tased repeatedly by a fellow officer. Weeks after the story was made public a small group of men took it upon themselves to find and physically harm the officer, causing minor injuries. This is against all logical retorts to self preservation or self-defense. This group went out of their way, after the primary event had subsided, to find this officer. To track him down, follow and stalk him until they could attack. This is a lowdown and dirty tactic by thugs and one usually associated with the police themselves. It is not an act that should be taken by those who wish to turn a course on the treatment of individuals by police officers.

The use of force on a person not in the preservation or defense of oneself or another in proximity is unexcusably unjustified and shameful. It leads to no other response from law enforcement officers but to retaliate on another helpless victim, continuing a cycle of violence and breeding a war of sorts between the public and the police.

It has been broadcast on social media sites, websites, personal blogs and Youtube videos, those that endorse this type of behavior, those that willingly admit to beliving this to be a admirable result and glorifying the culprits of the attacks. Some will say that even not in the protection of life or limb while in the presence of an officer one should have the right tot use this force based on the prior experiences and history of police brutality. Wholeheartedly I disagree, this is an unprovoked violation of a principled stance to not cause physical harm to others.

In a world gone mad we have police beating people and people beating police, continuing a cycle that will lead to a head and can usher in a higher police state presence and the ultimate loss of freedoms for even those not involved. Fight the State, not through their Modis Operandi, but through peaceful means. Spread ideas, not violence. Live as an example to a better world, live as an example what what it means to value liberty even in the darkest holes of state control and operation. This is not a plea for passification, it is not a plea to not defend yourself or other from abuse by state thugs. It is the spreading of the idea that even force can be met with non-violence and still win. If your only recourse is to cause violence than your ideas are narrow and your mind is closed.

Live by a standard. Live for something.

Do No Harm
Live the Non-Agression Principle

INVADE THE WORLD By Murray N. Rothbard

When Communism and the Soviet Union collapsed several years ago, it seemed evident that a massive reevaluation of American foreign policy had to get under way. For the duration of the Cold War, U.S. foreign policy was simply a bipartisan interventionist crusade against the Soviet Union, and the only differences were precisely how far the global intervention should go.

But when the Soviet Union fell apart, a rethinking seemed absolutely necessary, since what could form the basis of U.S. policy now? But among the intellectual pundits and elites, the molders of U.S. and even world opinion, virtually no rethinking has occurred at all. Except for Pat Buchanan and us paleos, U.S. foreign policy had proceeded as usual, as if the Cold War collapse never happened. How? Buchanan and the "neo-isolationists" urged that American intervention be guided strictly by American national interest. But the liberal/neocon alliance, now tighter than ever before (now that Soviet Communism, which the neocons were harder on, has disappeared), pretended to agree, and then simply and cunningly redefined "national interest" to cover every ill, every grievance, under the sun. Is someone starving somewhere, however remote from our borders? That's a problem for our national interest. Is someone or some group killing some other group anywhere in the world? That's our national interest. Is some government not a "democracy" as defined by our liberal-neocon elites? That challenges our national interest. Is someone committing Hate Thought anywhere on the globe? That has to be solved in our national interest.

And so every grievance everywhere constitutes our national interest, and it becomes the obligation of good old Uncle Sam, as the Only Remaining Superpower and the world's designated Mr. Fixit, to solve each and every one of these problems. For "we cannot stand idly by" while anyone anywhere starves, hits someone over the head, is undemocratic, or commits a Hate Crime.

It should be clear that there is now virtually no foreign policy distinction between the liberals and the neocons, the Tony Lewises and Bill Safires, Commentary and the Washington Post. Wherever the problem is, the liberal-neocon pundits and laptop bombardiers are all invariably whooping it up for U.S. intervention, for outright war, or for the slippery-slope favorite of "sanctions." Sanctions, the step-by-step escalation of intervention, is a favorite policy of the warmongers. Calling for immediate bombing or invading of Country X as soon as a grievance starts would seem excessive and even nutty to most Americans, who don't feel the same sense of deep commitment to the U.S.A. as Global Problem-Solver as do the pundits and elites. And sanctions can temporarily slake the thirst for belligerence. And so it's sanctions: starving the villains, cutting off transportation, trade, confiscating their property in terms of financial assets, and finally, when that doesn't work, bombing, sending troops, etc. Troops are usually sent first as purely "humanitarian" missionaries, to safeguard the "humane" aid of the UN "peacekeepers." But in short order, the benighted natives, irrationally turning against all this help and altruism, begin shooting at their beloved helpers, and the fat is in the fire, and the U.S. must face the prospects of sending troops who are ordered to shoot to kill.

In recent weeks, in addition to humanitarian troops, there had been escalating talk of American "sanctions": against North Korea of course, but also against Japan (for not buying more U.S. exports), against Haiti, against the Bosnian Serbs (always referred to as the "self-styled" Republic of Srpska, – this in contrast to all other governments "styled" by others?). Jesse Jackson wants the U.S. to invade Nigeria pronto, and now we have Senators Kerry (D., Mass.) calling for sanctions against our ancient foe, Canada, for not welcoming New England fishermen in its waters.

OK, the time has come to get tough and to get consistent. Sanctions are simply the coward's and the babbler's halfway house to war. We must face the fact that there is not a single country in the world that measures up to the lofty moral and social standards that are the hallmark of the U.S.A.: even Canada is delinquent and deserves a whiff of grape. There is not a single country in the world which, like the U.S., reeks of democracy and "human rights," and is free of crime and murder and hate thoughts and undemocratic deeds. Very few other countries are as Politically Correct as the U.S., or have the wit to impose a massively statist program in the name of "freedom," "free trade," "multiculturalism," and "expanding democracy."

And so, since no other countries shape up to U.S. standards in a world of Sole Superpower they must be severely chastised by the U.S., I make a Modest Proposal for the only possible consistent and coherent foreign policy: the U.S. must, very soon, Invade the Entire World! Sanctions are peanuts; we must invade every country in the world, perhaps softening them up beforehand with a wonderful high-tech missile bombing show courtesy of CNN.

But how will we Look in the Eyes of World Opinion if we invade the world? Not to worry; we can always get the cover of our kept stooges in the UN, NATO, or whatever. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, who is already reneging on his agreement to run for only one term as UN secretary-general, is perfect for the job; no more power-hungry UN official has ever existed. But what about the Security Council? That's OK, because we can always buy off the abstention of China or whoever for a few billion. No problem.

And then the whole world will subsist under the U.S. and UN flags, happy, protected, free of crime and poverty and hate. What could be more inspiring?

A few isolationist, narrow-minded, selfish, callous, and probably anti-Semitic gripers, however, are bound to complain. They like to talk about various "lessons," for example, Somalia. They like to say: well sure we can get in and "win" easily, but how do we get out? In order to fix up democracy, genocide, poverty, hate, etc., we the United States, must create the country's infrastructure, set up and train its entire army and police (preferably in the U.S.). We must teach the benighted country about freedom and free elections, create its two Respectable political parties, and begin with a massive multi-billion dollar aid program to make everyone healthy, wealthy, and wise, provide an educational program (replete with dropping huge bags of food by plane so CNN can do handsprings – even if some of the "helped" are killed by the bags), outlaw smoking and junk food, and feed them all with tofu and organically grown mangoes.

But what about the Getting Out Party? What about our universal experience that when U.S. troops get out, the whole aid, infrastructure, etc. go down the drain? The solution is simple, though it has been far overlooked because some narrow-minded selfish fascist stick-in-the-muds will raise a fuss. The solution: We Don't Get Out! Ever. So we don't have to worry about preparing the natives for transition. We should stay in there and cheerfully Run the World. Permanently for the good of all. A Paradise on Earth. We can call it, the "politics of meaning."

But how will we have the manpower to do the job of occupying? Don't worry about it. In the first place, we can have a 20-million man and woman army, suitably gayized and feminized and Politically Corrected, marching in there with food packages, medicines and hypodermics in one hand, and guns and condoms clutched in the other. We've got plenty of manpower options; we could bring back the draft, we could restore the Peace Corps, and/or we can set up a huge Buckley-Clinton type National Service program, where kids "pay back society" by spending two healthful, fun-filled maturing years setting up infrastructure in Zaire or Haiti or North Korea. With this program, the kids could "pay back" the Earth. What? You say that some of our kids might pick up diseases or get shot along the way? Well, that's OK, because, as they say these days, every failure is a "learning experience."

And then, of course, the U.S.A. will only provide the backbone of the permanent forces of World Occupiers. The rest of the slots will be filled by troops from every other world country, headed by the UN, NATO, etc., providing equally healthful and joyful experiences for other occupiers: Zairians, Ukrainians, Vietnamese, etc. To see Vietnamese troops, for example, occupying Holland, would provide instructive and globally democratic lessons in multiculturalism and mutual love of all peoples. The hardcore narrow-minded will of course have to be dealt with severely, but I am confident that massive educational programs, orientation courses, teachers, books and pamphlets, etc. will change the common climate of ethnic hate to love and understanding. In addition to teachers, hateful and undemocratic attitudes will be stamped out by a legion of shrinks, therapists counselors, etc.

How will all this be financed? Every nation will, of course, contribute its "fair share" of expenses, but since the U.S.A. is the world's Only Superpower, we must face the fact that the U.S. will have to be paying the lion's share – maybe 80 or 90 percent – of the program.

And of course there are always narrow-minded, backward, selfish dogmatists, who will balk at this program, and claim that it is too "costly." There are always a few rotters who know the price of everything and the value of nothing. But again: not to worry. There will be a massive transpartisan educational effort, from all parts of the spectrum, from the Clintonian or Jacksonian left to the dozens of self-proclaimed "free-market" think-tanks, who, suitably financed by government and by corporate elites, will pour forth tomes instructing us that the program will "pay for itself," that it is in the best tradition of the Free Market and Democracy; that these expenses are not really costly because they constitute "investment in human capital" and will therefore save the taxpayers money in the long run, etc. Thus, clearing up all the hookworm in the world will so reduce medical costs that we will all be paying less money. Eventually.

Any residue of complaint, any who survive this educational effort – and let's face it, there are a few rotten apples in every barrel – will be sent to "educational retraining centers," where their objections will be put to rest, and, after a few healthful years in these camps, chopping logs and reading the collected works of left, liberal, neocon and Pragmatic Libertarian pundits, I am sure that they will emerge, happily adjusted to the Brave New Global Democracy of tomorrow.

The above presents the consistent implications of our persistent policy of intervention, and it outlines the system toward which this country has been tending.

The question is: How do we derail this trend? How do we Take it Out? How do we prevent "1984"? Unfortunately, the Republican Party, while significantly better than the Democrats on domestic policy, has been, if anything, worse and more interventionist on foreign affairs. Note the Republican take on Slick Willie: they accuse him of bumbling, evasion, continual changes of line (all true), but except on Haiti, they don't really oppose intervention per se. Sure, it would be nice to have a clear-cut, consistent foreign policy, but clear-cut in what direction? A clear-cut Enemy is not exactly an unmixed blessing.

Meanwhile, things are far from hopeless. There is both an anti-war and paleo-grassroots ferment in this country that is heartwarming. There are all sorts of manifestations: Conservative Citizens Councils, county militia movements, sheriffs who refuse to enforce the Brady Bill, rightist radio talk show hosts, lack of enthusiasm for American troops getting killed in Somalia or Haiti, a Buchananite movement, and increasingly good sense on this question from syndicated columnist Robert Novak. Meantime, the least we at Triple R can do is accelerate the Climate of Hate in America, and hope for the best.

September 1994

Do we accept murder?

Do Americans accept the fact that murder is committed on a grand scale every day all around the world? Do we in some way endorse the idea that in order for there to be peace there must be chaos? Do we willingly allow murder to happen in the world for some small piece of false security? Do we accept the right to kill by some while punishing it in others? Is it the belief that to kill a few will save everyone else?

On any given day people are killed in mass numbers all around the world, in some of these cases the public cries out for justice and some they sit silent, justifying it in their minds as necessary or needed in order to prevent social disorder. According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC) an average of 2.3 million people die in the United States alone. That equates to less than 1% of the national population. And though the center keeps statistics for various ways in which Americans die, that list does not include some very serious situations. Examples would be those Americans that die at the hands of Police, They do not reflect military deaths abroad, and they do not take into account the homeless population that die as a result of starvation or exposure.

Murder is a strong word, it is meant to differentiate to some degree the intent of the act or the circumstance of the deceased person’s condition.   But can we really differentiate the act of taking someone’s life? Can we make it all comfortable and warm by relabeling it something else? Can we pretend it doesn’t have the same affect when we call it something else? I think this is a point a lot of people miss. The result of taking another’s life is the same if we call it a “Brutal Murder” or “Justifiable Homicide”. It is still the same if committed by a man or a woman, a person of certain heritage or skin color, It is the same if we say it is in self-defense or an act of passion or temporary insanity. It is even the same if committed by a person in the course of their job or duty. This fact cannot be refuted.

There has been a steady rise in the cases of death resulted by various means while in police custody. This is a trend that is not just national but international as the world moves into a more police and military industrial occupation. It seems daily there are stories of people being beaten by police, strangled by police, shot by police, run over by police and on and on. And there seems to be this overwhelming silence to it all. There are very little “news” agencies willing to tackle a story like these, there are no “government leaders” willing to call on the issue, but there is a small tireless minority that is screaming at the top of their suppressed lungs. Organizations like CopBlock.org, who through their online site are facilitating users and subscribers who have recorded police activity and presence to post these interactions to the world. Accountability and oversight being the aims of these users and organization, it has seen an increase in users, subscribers and uploaded video.

But again where is the outcry for the victims of police brutality and the deaths mounting by these officers? How is a man with a certain dress and given a badge and weapon given a right to kill others? Can there be a difference in the actions of these officers that prohibit them from the same shame and disgust of taking another’s life? It seems there is; at least to some.

Along the same lines as Police we have mentioned the actions of military service members. Can they, through granted immunity, not be seen as murderers? Do their actions not leave the same results? How can one differentiate the results as one being beneficial or justified and another being a scourge of mankind and a reprehensible act?

The use of military force is nothing new to this world and it seems there are not many who see any way to change that course. There are the many young people who use joining a military to gain monetary footholds, to enjoy benefits paid for by others or under the impression that they will be providing a service to others and the country of their birth or citizenship. Many see it as just a stepping stone into the world post schooling and pre individual responsibility.

The carnage raised by war and the destruction raised even in times on non-war have been brushed aside and legitimized by a majority of people in the world today. Some wartime actions are seen as horrid and evil (Nazi Concentration camps) others are given a pass in history (United States Internment camps). The bombing at Pearl Harbor is seen as a precursor to war, yet the daily drone bombings in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Pakistan, Mali, Somalia, Algeria are seen as justifiable uses of force. It is a hypocrisy, a pharisaic belief to act as if one act is any more or less of a crime against man as the other, yet this happens daily all around the world. Why? What has happened to the human mind and spirit that we have given false protection to an immoral act in certain circumstances, we ceremoniously give certain people a free pass at murder. No questions asked, no accountability, no judgment, and no recourse.

So as I started this writing I will end it. Do Americans accept the fact that murder is committed on a grand scale every day all around the world? Do we in some way endorse the idea that in order for there to be peace there must be chaos? Do we willingly allow murder to happen in the world for some small piece of false security? Do we accept the right to kill by some while punishing it in others? Is it the belief that to kill a few will save everyone else?

10,000 page views

Tonight we hit 10,000 pageviews. I want to sincerely thank each of you who have read, shared, tweeted or liked any of the posts over the past year and a half. It is a truly awesome feeling getting to this point. Much more to come and as always don't be afraid to leave comments or even suggestions on stories, topics, ideas even interests, everything is welcome. You can follow the blog by email and follow me on Twitter at @PatriotPapers.

Thank you so much.

#Hashtag Hypocrisy

This week the newest case of kidnapping for human trafficking and sex trades took place in Nigeria. It seems the world over people are calling for the return of these girls. Even First Lady Michelle Obama has taken to social media to call for the return of these kidnapped Nigerians and to bring notice to the underground world of the child sex trade and human trafficking. Using the hashtag #BringBackOurGirls she has contributed her image to this cause.

Now she isn’t the first and she will not be the last to use this tag. Other well-known people (I dare not call her a celebrity) have started their own campaigns and contributed to other for this same issue. This newest campaign hit the internet and the public have used this to turn the images into a campaign calling on the hypocrisy of the First Lady and the Whitehouse. Using this image in particular the results have been a barrage of anti-war and anti-Obama coming from Twitter, Facebook and other social media sites. It is a glaring reminder of the wartime hypocrisy of Washington and of this administration in particular. Thousands die as victims of the United States drone warfare program, yet there are no celebrities speaking out, none would dare make a sign to call on the President to end the careless and immoral killing of Middle eastern men, women and children.

.

Those in Washington and those in Hollywood that are contributing to this campaign are in stark contrast to what the true message should be, in this case, It doesn’t matter if you are a Nigerian school girl or a Middle Eastern Child you should not be subjected to these horrors of man. This is not to say that one be more important than the other but rather to say that they are in my mind the same. We cannot be the moral hero’s in one country while continuing our programs of murder and destruction in another. The moral line is drawn and we wait with baited breath for those that are in power to use that power to truly make a difference. If we are to say that one particular group of people or even one person is more valuable as a human than another, this world is in serious trouble.

Hashtags will not save lives. It takes action and in this case I feel we will see this action, misguided and misused as it will be, we will subject an entire nation to the use of force the United States is known for. Drone strikes, thousands of troops, destroyed towns and cities, rebuilding programs and heaps of financial aid plundered from the people of one country to give to the government of another. This year’s Kony Campaign will end in the same way. The only results will be wasted time, money and resources.

What is Justice?

I was thinking about these few questions today. What is justice?  What is individual justice? Who gets to define public or social justice? These are questions that I often think about when I read comments on news stories. Everyone seems to have their own view of what justice is; what punishment would or should fit the crime. Often times these views are more brutal than the crime in which they are meant to punish, in my personal opinion. And that is exactly where this topic goes; the subjectivity of justice.

Recently a local story came across my news feed in which an adult had sexual relations with a younger person, younger being described as lower than the "legally" stipulated age at which persons can make decisions to have these relations. The comments read as if I was looking into the minds of psychopaths and sociopath's dreams. Murder him, castrate him, were the normal responses, one even read to castrate him, put his castrated member into his mouth, tie him behind a vehicle and drag him until he died. Is that justice? Would those actions be justified as a result of what he and another had conspired to do willingly and voluntarily? At what point does the attempt at justice reach revenge, vengeance or immoral means to an immoral end?

Lysander Spooner had this to say of justice;

"The science of mine and thine --- the science of justice --- is the science of all human rights; of all a man's rights of person and property; of all his rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
It is the science which alone can tell any man what he can, and cannot, do; what he can, and cannot, have; what he can, and cannot, say, without infringing the rights of any other person.
It is the science of peace; and the only science of peace; since it is the science which alone can tell us on what conditions mankind can live in peace, or ought to live in peace, with each other.
These conditions are simply these: viz., first, that each man shall do, towards every other, all that justice requires him to do; as, for example, that he shall pay his debts, that he shall return borrowed or stolen property to its owner, and that he shall make reparation for any injury he may have done to the person or property of another.
The second condition is, that each man shall abstain from doing to another, anything which justice forbids him to do; as, for example, that he shall abstain from committing theft, robbery, arson, murder, or any other crime against the person or property of another."

The combined idea of justice in the public eye seems to be one of three outcomes; Incarceration, death, or monetary punishment and of course a combination of all three. All of these though come from one enforcement monopoly; The State. What moral right does the state have to do these things? Is it the transferred authority of the voting populace? How does one account for the individual preference of justice over the majority? If a man has a moral philosophy to not do harm to another, is it right that a man who has damaged his property be then harmed by the state, not by the victim’s wishes but by mandated "justice"? Does the individual have no say as to what should be seen as just in his eyes, whether that means to let the perpetrator go or to punish them as he wishes? Under our current system the right to exact justice by individuals is made illegal and a monopoly has risen to take control of such matters. The American legal system, in all its dysfunction, has created a way for government to gain off of the misdeeds of others even when no harm has befallen the state in the matter. This is where the question comes in of what moral right does the state have to punish anyone for crimes in which it was not harmed? Why is there mandated minimum sentencing for crimes in which there are no victims? Why is justice taken from the hands of those involved and given to a system that benefit from the results of its own rules and laws?

An eye for an eye, Is that justice?

In an attempt to explain personal views of justice some will say they believe in the old adage of "an eye for an eye". Can equal punishment be considered equal justice? If a person was to kill a man's spouse, and the victimized man believed in equal punishment to the action, would the killing of an innocent person who is married to the aggressor be justice? Could it not be said of the spouse, who has now been killed in response to the death of another, even though they had no knowledge or part in the act is somehow responsible for the act of their spouse in order to avenge justice to the victim, are they now not a victim themselves? Does this circle ever end? 

Can the attempted correction of a wrong be justified by preforming another wrong?
Is it justice for a man guilty only of selling a plant disapproved of by government to be sentenced to a life in a cage? Is it justice for a mother who provides pain reliving medicine to her child to be sentenced to a life in jail, all because the medicine is not approved by a government agency? Is it justice that a man or woman who have engaged in consenual sexual relations be punished, because of an arbitrary age of consent imposed by someone outside that relationship? Is it Justice that any amount of people are barred from being united in marriage by law, punishable by state enforcement?

Can Justice ever really be achieved? Can full restitution for any act of aggression really be made? Is it a subjective view on what would be justified compensation? Can an act performed in the name of justice be an injustice in itself? How can one ensure just compensation is made without further aggressing against another or against the primary aggressor?

There can be no justice in a world of unscrupulous men.

Again Lysander Spooner, 

"If there be such a natural principle as justice, it is necessarily the highest, and consequently the only and universal, law for all those matters to which it is naturally applicable. And, consequently, all human legislation is simply and always an assumption of authority and dominion, where no right of authority or dominion exists. It is, therefore, simply and always an intrusion, an absurdity, an usurpation, and a crime.
On the other hand, if there be no such natural principle as justice, there can be no such thing as dishonesty; and no possible act of either force or fraud, committed by one man against the person or property of another, can be said to be unjust or dishonest; or be complained of, or prohibited, or punished as such. In short, if there be no such principle as justice, there can be no such acts as crimes; and all the professions of governments, so called, that they exist, either in whole or in part, for the punishment or prevention of crimes, are professions that they exist for the punishment or prevention of what never existed, nor ever can exist. Such professions are therefore confessions that, so far as crimes are concerned, governments have no occasion to exist; that there is nothing for them to do, and that there is nothing that they can do. They are confessions that the governments exist for the punishment and prevention of acts that are, in their nature, simple impossibilities."

The Pro-Choice - Pro-Life debate

My post Anarchist, Libertarian or Voluntarism: Why I Use One Word Over Another was recently published on the ZeroGov.com website. A commenter had this to say," Ken on May 1, 2014 at 20:45 said:When I got to:

“Some will say that certain traits within libertarianism are dangerous to modern life; ………….pro-choice on abortion, ………………..open borders”. I stopped reading. I am a 45 year old lifelong anarchist. I welcome you former state-ists to the party. Libertarians are pro-choice?!?!? Abortion is a tool of the state. It is founded on eugenics, racism, and the force of the state to eliminate undesirables – one child policies. Any pro-abortion “libertarian” is a Progressive stooge for the state. I suggest you go away."

 I wanted to take a second to correct a fallacy that is presented here and also to write out my thoughts on abortion and the pro-life - pro-choice debate.

A common misconception or fallacy is to relate someone who identifies as Pro-Choice as someone who would choose abortion or is an advocate of it. This is false. A defense of life in line with a pro-life stance is to say that all life is precious and that to kill this life at any time is immoral. What isn't included with most pro-life stances is the definition of life. It is seen as somewhat subjective or objective to the individual. In the minds of some it is the beginning of the process of conception, when sperm meets egg and begins the fertilization process. Some would say it is the birth of the being that signifies life while others would argue on times and situations in between these two ends. Myself I see the logical fact that in our world we construct our medical experiences to explain death as the absence of a natural heartbeat (natural heartbeat being defined as the natural or unadulterated heartbeat of a being, medical technological continuation of this process does not qualify as natural), in this definition the logical opposite of this would be used to explain the beginning of life as the occurrence of a natural heartbeat. This takes place somewhere between 15-20 days after conception.

If the idea of conception is used, which is the chemical and biological process of the production and combination of cells, it would be logical to conclude that a human not be considered dead until the production of cells and the biological breakdown of all cells has been completed, or well after the body has been clinically or legally dead by its current definition.

Does this mean that prior to 15-20 days, the entity is not human? No, it is very much human as we decribe the biological makeup of the being as the collection of combined DNA from male and female partners. What this means is that the idea of life is not attached by the fact it is human. The fact that a body is in the ground or in another body does not negate the fact that it is human, but it does not imply it is alive either.

The original intent of this post is to clarify the meaning of Pro-Choice as a philosophical principle. In all cases I believe the individual or individuals involved have the ultimate choice in all matters that affect them. This goes with the ability to abort a fetus. The two individuals involved have the choice whether to complete the pregnancy or to abort it, my personal opinion of whether it be right or wrong is not needed in their case and likewise should remain my opinion and not tried to be put into action against them. The saying, "Public opinion should not impose on personal freedom" goes well here. My opinion or idea of what is right or wrong on this issue can only be applied if I and my partner are currently expecting a child. This is not currently the way our society or the whole of the public thinks of this issue and this is not an attempt to subvert that opinion but rather to give an alternate way of thinking about it.

In any case the choice of the individuals involved should be the only choice that matters. To claim that someone who claims to be pro-choice on the matter of abortion is an advocate of the practice or be in some way accepting of it by others is disingenuous and deceitful.

Top Ten Capitalist Arguments – Explained

I found this rather interesting post on Reddit which sent me to this Liberty.me users profile. Ethan Glover gives an excellent rebuttal to this video trying to give a false impression of Capitalism.

It is not often that I respond to these things of such low quality as the video below. I vowed a long time ago that I am done with anarcho-communists. I do not debate them, and I do not talk to them. After many attempts of communicating with them, with 100% accuracy I was exposed to the most vile of creatures totally unable to act like adults, or even like human beings. I don’t like to generalize entire groups. I was sent a message by an anarcho-communist with some very helpful and enlightening information that gave me a better understanding of their philosophy once. Will Moyer, a leftist, wrote a brilliantly put together article that I responded to in “The Limits of Will Moyer“. But any efforts I have made to talk to them directly have resulted in the most pathetic and lowest of treatments.

The reason I so thoroughly enjoyed Will Moyer’s article is because, unlike the video below, it was not full of SCE (sarcasm, cynicism, exaggeration). His article made his points directly and he proved that he had an understanding of “right libertarianism,” or synonymously, and more accurately to me, anarcho-capitalism. He did not mince words and was not afraid to go against libertarianism, but at the same time he did not treat his writing as a BuzzFeed Top 10 list. It was meant to be of high quality, and it was meant to be taken seriously.

The video below was made for attention and makes no attempt to understand capitalism, but rather it only illustrates a reconfirmation of biases. I respond to it only at request, and grudgingly so. If the video creator wanted to be taken seriously he would have sucked it up, cut out the childish SCE and utilized a little CHI (curiosity, humor, impudence). Or to put it in other words, there’s no problem with disagreeing and rejecting the arguments of others, but if you don’t want to be torn apart, try to have some fun and create a real discussion. This video, in its despicably low BuzzFeed sarcastic style, does not deserve a bit of respect. I’d be willing to point out the positives in all other cases as I did with Moyer, but this will simply be the crumpling and throwing away of an undeserving piece of junk.

A note on how to read this article: This is not a thorough break down of anything in particular. Rather, it is merely a response to a poorly put together, quick list of arguments against capitalism (which are actually arguments against socialism). For the best way to follow this article, watch the video one item at a time, and then read the appropriate response. For example, watch #10 from the video, then read #10 in the article. #9 from the video, then #9 in the article and so on.

10. Capitalism promotes innovation

Many people do indeed fall into taking easy jobs and not looking for upward mobility. Of course, the socialist answer is usually to force everybody into a single system of being equally poor. Not everyone is capable of being innovative, and not everyone wants to sit around playing the guitar all day. Most people take normal jobs that require simple work and live their life outside of work. Work does not have to be some amazing thing that we love to do, there are always going to be shitty jobs out there to be done. What we can do is allow adults to make their own decisions, and run their own lives. You simply cannot force everyone to be an artist. If everyone were innovative, there would be no such thing as innovative.

Not only that, but the source that the video uses to show that only 13% of people are disengaged at work is a worldwide poll. The four highest countries for most engaged are the United States (mixed-economy, partially capitalist), Canada (mixed-economy, partially capitalist), Australia (market economy, third freest economy in the world), and New Zealand (market economy, fourth freest economy in the world). The most disengaged? East Asia (which with the exception of newly capitalist systems such as China and Hong Kong, most countries in East Asia have socialist command economies), Sub-Saharan Africa (a highly underdeveloped region with a long history of socialism and communism), and South Asia (a highly liberalized area, it’s fastest growing nation, Sri Lanka recently took on some capitalist policies). [Source]

As for the source on people not responding to financial incentive? Massively taken out of context. First, the study found that when it comes to mechanical skills, people respond to financial incentives, and when it comes to cognitive skills people respond to different kinds of incentives, but we’ll get back to that. The economic law that says people respond to incentives is still true. If you don’t pay a programmer enough, he’ll quit for a higher paying job. However, once the pay is good enough, he’ll start to look for other incentives like the ability to be autonomous and creative. What does this mean? High value employees are capable of demanding more, and do so. This is something we have found through capitalism. It is the still generally free market in the software world that has recognized this. This is why you see such incredible innovation in the workplace in places like Google and Amazon. This has been known for a long time, this research is only repeating what has already been discovered in, and put into practice in the free market.

Within the highly capitalist software industry, this is also where you see things like Apache, Linux, and Wikipedia. Large open source projects that are dependent upon free labor and donations. The “open-source way” does call for people to lead projects, but it also welcomes free labor. Open source has become one of the best ways for young people to gain experience and work with big projects. This is why they’re so popular. It provides an opening, and the people who are at the top, leading the project and running the show? They’re being paid. Of course, they’re being paid. It’d be silly to think that wasn’t the case. Open-source is a huge industry. All of this is a part of the free market. Being free of charge has nothing to do with socialism. This entire video is an idiotic misunderstanding of a simple word that can be looked up in the dictionary in about two seconds. Socialism means collective ownership. Guess what? The Wikimedia Foundation, The Apache Software Foundation, and Linux distributions such as Fedora? All owned and operated by full time employees.

Queue the canned rants about “global inequality” and how it’s not fair that everyone doesn’t have the same piece of the imaginary pie. First of all, wealth is not distributed, it is created. It is the socialist nations who end up poor. It is not the fault of capitalist nations that that is the case. It is the fault of the governments for holding people back and not allowing them to adapt to the world and build better lives for themselves. Second, you don’t need to be rich to innovate, the greatest innovators throughout the world come from humble and poor means. It is their striving to build something that pushes them into innovating in the first place. Does this mean it is capitalism itself that promoted that innovation? Sort of, on a general scale. But take it down to the individual scale as the video has, and it’s more because those innovators wanted to get rich and share their ideas.

Then there’s the idea, that’s repeated many times throughout the video that “capitalist education” destroys creative thinking and critical thought. Of course, the video is ignorantly referring to public schools, the exact thing it had just called for by saying that we are more than capable of providing education for everyone.

9. Free markets increase economic development

Immediately after saying the word “free market”, the video starts talking about the IMF, World Bank, and Free Trade Organization. These are not free market organizations, and it must be said that it is impossible to force free market on anyone. At that point, it is by definition, not free, nor capitalism. People must be able to trade among themselves freely in order for there to be a free market. You’d think that’d be obvious, right? It then suggests that protectionist policies such as anti-trust laws and banking bailouts are good for economies, and all the evidence that shows that protectionist policies are only to protect special interests (shocker!) don’t matter.

On the internet being a major innovation, let’s consider first where innovation on the internet has come from. To the government, the internet was nothing but a tool for the military, they had no idea of its power. It was only until the private sector started building on it that it became what we know of today. The internet that the video refers to is pure private sector. Not only that, but just because entrepreneurs use roads to drive to work, that does not mean the government is responsible for their innovations. In the absence of government, roads will still exist, just cheaper and more efficient. If the government never created the “internet”, it still would’ve been created, probably by the same private sector contractors. The internet and GPS, today, are old technologies that are only useful to the average person because of innovative entrepreneurs in the free market.

8. Markets are a rational means of organizing economic life.

The fact that the U.S. wastes so much food is a sign of prosperity (obviously). That prosperity comes from better technology and a (relatively) free market. The starving nations around the world (which are mostly under socialism and dictatorships) lack the agricultural technology that countries like the U.S. do. Even still, countries like the U.S. continue to send them food and care, causing their populations to rise disproportionally to their technology. This only makes things worse than they are. Socialist programs of just giving things away with no consideration as to the consequences and potential alternatives (such as abandoning intellectual property and business regulations that may allow companies to help these countries) are what cause the mass poverty in poor nations.

The New Deal (mentioned in one of the videos sources), by the way, destroyed the economy and it was only after Roosevelt’s death and the removal of his policies that the economy recovered from it and World War II.

As for planned obstination, this is primarily caused by inflation, which is caused by central banking. As the dollar loses value, people have less to spend, so they demand cheaper products. Companies respond to this demand by making… cheaper products. In order to do this, they must use lower quality material. This is as opposed to the post world war two era in which socialist public works programs were being dismantled and the pent up economy went through a major boom. This was an era in which cars, clothes and appliances were made to be very sturdy and long lasting. Today, people simply cannot afford such things and must choose lower quality products.

These cheaper products do not generate more profits, because they are lower priced products for lower priced material. Without planned obstination, there would be higher priced products with higher priced materials that would be more durable, and would not be replaced nearly as much.

When Keynes said that technology would lead to 15 hour workweeks he ignores the entire purpose of technology. Technology allows us to advance society. As technology rises, we create different kinds of technological jobs. The purpose of technology is not to create an imaginary, impossible Peter Joseph world. It is to raise the standard of living and to solve problems. Robots have replaced menial factory line jobs and have allowed more people to take on more challenging jobs in robotics and electronics. This is a positive that the video was complaining doesn’t exist from the very beginning. You don’t create more challenging jobs by playing the guitar for no pay, you do it by innovating in the free market to meet customer demand.

The videos source, which complains about people working longer hours, makes no mention of things like inflation and high tax rates. The countries mentioned such as the United States, Canada and Japan all have some of the highest individual tax rates in the world. As always, the socialist answer is just to pass regulation to shorten the workweek, which inevitably leads to mass poverty because no one can afford to live and afford all the socialist publics works programs at once. As for the article on “bullshit jobs,” it’s just a lot of complaints about necessary jobs and how the author wishes he could spend his life doing nothing productive.

You can work as long as you want, the free market (again) is by definition free. The market isn’t some magical being that doesn’t let you do less work. It is, however, inefficient and bad for the people to hire 100 people to work for half an hour each. To quote the video, “How stupid is that?”

The claim that everyone is working “bullshit jobs” to buy “bullshit products” is.. well.. bullshit. It’s entirely subjective opinion. My smartphone is not a bullshit product, nor is my laptop. I don’t own any bullshit products, because I don’t choose to buy products that I think are bullshit. I think socialist books are bullshit products and a waste of money. But some people don’t, so be it. Nobody “makes me want” anything, that again, is a bullshit argument. If you buy one thing over another, that does not make you superior, that makes you human.

7. We can prevent bad business practices through ethical consumerism.

The very first argument is that the media (state controlled) is advertising products to people and are, therefore, catering to the evil corporations. Advertising, overtime, has become much more subtle, internet marketing is about advertising products to people who already want that product. This has happened because people have begun to ignore advertisements, this is why adless mediums such as Netflix have become so popular over things like cable.

Yes, vegging out on the couch and watching TV is bad for you, but will it program you to go out and buy stuff? No. In the end, it is the individuals choice and responsibility to do so. Everyone, including the commentator of this video, has found a great product that they like (and is, therefore, subjectively not bullshit) through advertising. Advertising is not only a great way to drive down costs of certain things like YouTube (ads are the reason it’s free) but it’s a great way for us to discover new products that we might enjoy. A personal lack of self-control is no reason to vilify the entire thing. That’s like saying Mountain Dew should be illegal because I enjoy it too damned much.

But, the point of saying advertising is bad is because companies won’t advertise their own bad practices. Yes… that’s an actual claim. At no point have I ever heard a capitalist claim that companies should self-police. What I have heard is that the market is capable of self-policing. This means that there is no need for government intervention. Especially when there are things like Consumer Reports and the thousands of systems for product review out there such as with Amazon and eBay.

Just because single products bring multiple products together, it doesn’t mean a thing. Individual products and companies speak for themselves. What the video is referencing (but coyly doesn’t mention) is the “business practices” of companies in foreign socialist nations in which workers are treated like cattle, thanks to bad economies and regulations created by their governments.

At the end of this rant, the video says you can only vote with your money if you actually have any money. This shows a total misunderstanding of what voting with your wallet means. First of all, politics currently control and dictate most business products, especially things like food. Businesses can not cater to their customer because they are either held back by protectionist regulation or must use protectionist regulation to get ahead. Voting with your wallet has nothing to do with moving companies actions by yourself, it’s about making your own decisions. Yes, this gets increasingly harder as countries become more socialist, that does not negate the purpose.

6. Government regulations address the question of bad practices.

No. They don’t. They create them. This is not capitalism, it’s got nothing to do with it. What the video complains about is actually socialism.

Capitalism: The possession of capital or wealth; an economic system in which private capital or wealth is used in the production or distribution of goods and prices are determined mainly in a free market; the dominance of private owners of capital and of production for profit.

Socialism: A theory or system of social organization based on state or collective ownership and regulation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange for the common benefit of all members of society; advocacy or practice of such a system, esp. as a political movement.

The enforcement of collective ownership and social organization is government. The government, through socialism, chooses certain companies over others by creating protectionist regulations.

“Worker control” already exists due to government regulation, they’re called unions, and they only make things worse by deluding supply and demand.

5. Don’t you buy things from corporations? Doesn’t that make you a hypocrite?

No.

4. Capitalists put risk into their businesses.

It was challenging for Nazi’s to take power, and because it’s challenging to start a business, then it’s wrong? Wait, what if it’s challenging to build a socialist system that doesn’t collapse in five years? Does that make it wrong? This has nothing to do with challenge, it’s about the fact that when someone puts blood and sweat into building something, you can’t come along and claim that it somehow equally belongs to everyone on earth.

People voluntarily build businesses, other people voluntarily work for those businesses. In the same way that this video creator thinks you’re stupid for buying a smartphone instead of socialist literature, he thinks you’re stupid for working for a private company rather than working for the government or a cooperative. It is actively saying that you are too dumb to manage your own life and instead, your life should be run by a British teenager on the internet.

Socialists want to exercise their power over others by destroying systems that everyone explicitly agrees to and is perfectly happy with. Thankfully, they’re unwilling to take the risks of gaining actual support and tend to enact what they want through groups like the democratic party in the hopes that one day, the government will put a gun to your head and tell you that you own nothing, no matter what your personal beliefs are.

3. Living standards improve overall, even for the poor.

Living standards improved under Nazism and Fascism, therefore, it’s not a good thing that living standards improve under capitalism. Again, the video is going immediately towards the Nazi’s and saying, “Look, they did it!” If the video claimed that socialism improves living standards for the poor (as it does temporarily) I could claim the same thing. What’s more important is that capitalism and free trade permanently raise living standards and does not lead to mass famine and poverty as socialism and Keynesianism does.

Argentina has always had economic troubles and experienced the usual boom bust cycles that any Keynesian economy does. There’s nothing wrong with worker cooperatives and are perfectly welcome under capitalism. If they work, if they can meet customer demand, then they are totally OK. I would love to see more attempts at cooperatives, but only if they compete on the free market where people can decide which is best. It is important to mention that there are both pros and cons of co-ops. It is also important to remember that the customer is more important than the employee. This does not mean it’s OK to commit criminal actions against employees, but to say that working is a personal decision that is about serving others for the sake of future personal benefit.

2. Capitalism is the result of human nature.

First of all, capitalism has existed for at least 150,000 years. Second, of course it came after humans, humans created trade. Capitalism being a result of human nature has nothing to do with genetics as the video author very well knows. It’s about the fact that trade is a part of communication. It’s what allows us to build societies. The division of labor is the entire reason modern society exists.

Communicating with others and having friends has nothing to do with communism.

Communism: A theory that advocates the abolition of private ownership, all property being vested in the community, and the organization of labor for the common benefit of all members; a system of social organization in which this theory is put into practice.

The video is trying to suggest that capitalism means you can’t live with friends, have relationships or communicate. However, it is in communism that it becomes impossible to solve disputes because there is no recognition of ownership. Such a society quickly devolves into a primitive state.

Capitalism does not force you to charge your friends to help you to move. This, as the video creator and everyone on earth knows, is a ridiculous thing to say to begin with. Capitalism thrives on, and asks for cooperation, it is built on cooperation. Competition is not the opposite of cooperation, nor is it the only foundation of capitalism. And yes, competition is natural, if it weren’t, sports wouldn’t have been around for well over 4,000 years.

And then we get back to how public schools are capitalist schools. Over and over, this video talks about socialism and calls it capitalism. The public education system (which this video creator should adore) teaches an over exaggerated idea of “sharing is caring”. They do not teach fundamental reasoning, negotiation and critical thinking skills. If we had a capitalist education system, there surely would be plenty of schools that did just that, but alas, we have a socialist one.

1. Capitalism is the only system that’s possible.

No one is saying this. In fact, it is very rare to see capitalism today. It certainly does not exist in the US or UK. But the video doesn’t talk about that and the historical effects of socialism. Instead, it queues the pictures that are purely a result of the tragedy of the commons and the lack of private property. When all land is unowned, people have no incentive to take care of it.

It’s been proven time and again that the environment is not headed for collapse, and when the economy collapses it is often due to Keynesian practices and central banking which creates ridiculous and unnecessary boom/bust cycles.

The only need for social change is the need to get rid of government to allow people to act like adults and make their own decisions instead of bending to these ridiculous “common good” arguments that have never had a lick of actual reasoning behind them. (Mostly because there is no such thing as a common good, it’s an impossible concept.)

The only way you’re ever going to convince everyone that all companies should be cooperatives is to force it on them by regulation. The fact is that structured companies, which are responsive to the customer, not some bratty socialist employees, will always out compete them and the customers will always choose them as superior businesses.

As for anarcho-syndicalism in the Spanish Civil War, this system was indeed forced on those peaceful non-criminals who did not want it. The punishment for using money was death. There is no possible way to force a particular kind of anarchy without the use of coercion, in which case, it is inevitably a state. Of course, this is only in the few areas that anarchy was established. In the grander sense, the Spanish Civil War was fought between Nazi and Italian Fascist supporter Dictator Francisco Franco against the Soviet Union.

I get that anarchy makes places better than they are, I’m sure those parts of Spain under anarchy were in a better position than being under a long series of dictators who were constantly at war for the entirety of Spain’s history. Is this really the best case for “left libertarianism?” If so, it’s got nothing to stand on.

Conclusions

In reality, this video gives no real arguments against capitalism and why it is criminal. There are a lot of arguments against socialism and the usual whining of, “Why isn’t everyone as economically ignorant as me? I’ll make them that way!”, but nothing with any real content.

When the video says not to use, “rehashed, terrible phrases that mean nothing [that] are often completely inconsistent with reality” it ignores the fact that the video uses a stereotypically wrong view of capitalism pushed by socialist government and it ignores the realities of economics, something socialists like this have never been able to get straight in their entire history.