Bolstering Bad Business

There should be a separation of business and government. When, like now, that separation doesn’t exist, bad things can and will happen. It is no secret that government run programs often fall victim to the worst in economic practices. We do not have to look far to see many recent examples of government bolstering bad businesses. With that in mind, two interesting articles came across my newsfeed this week and both are related in effect and cause. The two also show a failure in economic practices, and both deserve to be answered with some sort of rational economic thinking.

The first article I read showed that Amtrak, the mass transit rail program created by Congress in 1970, has been running huge deficits every year, supported by taxpayer subsidies. These subsidies have allowed a failing business to continue to operate on bad principles and creates a form of corporate welfare; all paid for out of taxpayers’ pockets. Altogether, taxpayers foot an average $1 Billion dollars annually into this program and it is only getting worse. One thing is for certain, if the business was made to live on its own revenue, like private business, it would either find a way to rid itself of detrimental wasteful lines or it would have gone out of business long ago.

The other was about the United States Postal Service and their quarterly loss of $2 BILLION. I am sure most of us can remember the price of stamps and services when we were younger, and I am sure we all remember almost every single time they were raised. But what makes this different than just rising with the rate of inflation, set and attempted to be managed by the Federal Reserve, is the annual rise in prices and services is met with an increasing deficit and an increasing annual subsidy from the taxpayer’s pocket.

Simple economics suggests that whenever a business receives bailouts or subsidies from government it is at the expense of not only the taxpayers but also at the expense of the market economy. As anyone should be able to see, the use of government subsidies coming from the pockets and paychecks of the American Taxpayer bolsters bad businesses and deepens a negative effect on sound economic principles. 

Tahmooressi and the Border Issue

The latest battle between political parties and their followers and pundits is the issue of Borders, Securing those borders, Immigration and Amnesty. It has in the past few months become the most visible topic by candidates, commentators and political junkies alike. The story of ex-US Marine Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi has reignited this issue and has left myself with more than enough questions to the idea of borders and the sincerity of either political party and their adherents to the motives of their stances. The idea of borders, definable lines arbitrarily drawn on maps and fought over, has consumed the airwaves.

As always, the issue is made to be seen as only two options. Pro Immigration and Anti Immigration or Pro-Amnesty and Anti-Amnesty. The first option is to allow amnesty to persons already in the country "illegally" and the second is to continue deportation and criminal charges against those living in the United States borders without having gone through the immigration process, the "legal" way as they call it. The line these two beliefs draws is apparent and approachable by yet other paths. The history of immigration into the United States is riddled with laws, regulation, restrictions, hate, fear, death and hypocrisy. Beginning the Idea of America on the act of Immigration, Genocide and Conquest doesn't lend well to the history of immigration into this country and the resulting years and decades since the first Illegal Alien stepped foot on American soil. If we were to respect borders of any countries our military armaments would rust and its soldiers be taken back to private employment. If one reduces this issue down to its base it is a belief that one person may have say over the movement of another, this is to say that one person holds rule over another, or that any government have the right to restrict travel in any way.

We have seen wars fought over land, deaths in foreign countries in the name of this land and a new breed of bigots and hypocrites arise from the simple act of movement and travel around the globe. The mainstream accepted idea on immigration is to subject other human beings to tests and health restrictions, to perform up to certain levels, to curtail freedom and to allow themselves to be robbed of wealth in the process. Every year hundreds of people die in an effort to reach "The Most Free and Most Prosperous Country in the World". They die in their attempt to reach a land that promises freedom and prosperity, they die for a lack of freedom to enjoy a better life, they die for a lack of freedom to move about the earth unhindered and uninhibited. The act of Legalized Immigration is an act of barbarity and exclusivity.


To say you believe in the closing of borders, demarcations of land used in exclusion by one government entity, You have not only barred any entering of outside persons but have also confined oneself to the same rule. You have created your own prison.

The economic theory behind the want of closed borders is this. As more and more immigrants come into this country they will, without fail, turn and send these American dollars outside of our borders. In a proper understanding of Economics this isn't seen as a negative as any country that bars it's currency from foreign circulation fails to have that currency to buy products from the foreign markets. If this theory were to hold water, countries would have difficulty acquiring goods from foreign markets for lack of foreign funds. Now one might say to convert these currencies would be the answer and to reduce trade to currency exchanges and money manipulation. There is also the prohibition of allowing workers into trades within a country. Lower skilled workers who enter into a foreign marker make much lower wages, while this is seen on its surface as a negative, is actually a positive. Lower wages equal out to lower costs and in effect lead to lower prices. "Let's look at the problem of immigration from another angle. There exists a market demand for low-skilled cheap labor. Part of this demand is being met by outsourcing of jobs overseas. The rest is met by vast numbers of immigrants coming to this country. Illegal immigration is the market supplying a demand. A demand is being met and satisfied. When viewed this way, how is this a problem? This triumph of the market is not in itself a problem." says Wade A. Mitchell

Now to the Hypocrisy Part.

Ex-US Marine Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi sits in a jail cell in Mexico for this very act, and the hypocrites on every side of the political aisle are in fervor for his release and an escape from the very laws they seek to impose on their own borders. The Marine, who had been visiting friends had supposedly come upon a border crossing station and checkpoint run by the Mexican Federal Government. Tahmooressi alledges to have informed the guards that he had registered weapons in the vehicle and had just made a wrong turn. Enforcing their own laws the border agents arrested Tahmooressi and the ensuing battle over his release has brought a new wave of nationalistic border builders and wall wishers. Whether Tahmooressi had or had not meant to cross into Mexico and whether or not he informed them of his weaponry, the Mexican Border Agents did the job of upholding their national law. This law may not be agreeable to me but it is to those that wish to "secure" the US's borders in the same fashion. It is hypocritical to say that a man from America should be released from custody yet scream and push for the same actions from your own border agents and administration.  This is the real gap in reasoning I see in the issue.

The gap in this is the face of the issue, subjective value and nationalism. Nationalism, to believe that the nation of your residence is befitting a higher status and therefore more rule over any other. The Subjective Value to reduce a mans worth and the worth of all others to the geographical location of their birth. The happenstance of birth in any place of the world  does not predispose one to a higher place in the world or a higher rule over others. It should not be seen as a benefit or hindrance where one is placed on the earth and it should not be restricted or inhibited in any way to any place he wishes to travel.

The issue of borders can best be seen from afar. Space. In the pictures of earth from above there are no borders, there is only earth, all of us together, all of us combined in this experience.

Tesla Motors is going Open Source.

Tesla Motor's CEO  Elon Musk put out a short statement on the car makers website June 12th 2014. This statement was to address the decision to completely release all of the patents currently held by Tesla Motors. This is a great step forward in the effort to bring the zero emission and alternate fuel based vehicles into a better field of collaboration and competition. In the economics study of the Austrian field competition is seen as a great motivator to reduced prices and better services. I hope with this in mind more companies seek to not try and hold onto patents but allow open sourcing to make great strides in not only the competition area but also in the technological advancements area. Below is the letter written by Mr. Musk explaining his decision in a bit more detail and reasons why this move was made. 

"Yesterday, there was a wall of Tesla patents in the lobby of our Palo Alto headquarters. That is no longer the case. They have been removed, in the spirit of the open source movement, for the advancement of electric vehicle technology.
Tesla Motors was created to accelerate the advent of sustainable transport. If we clear a path to the creation of compelling electric vehicles, but then lay intellectual property landmines behind us to inhibit others, we are acting in a manner contrary to that goal. Tesla will not initiate patent lawsuits against anyone who, in good faith, wants to use our technology.
When I started out with my first company, Zip2, I thought patents were a good thing and worked hard to obtain them. And maybe they were good long ago, but too often these days they serve merely to stifle progress, entrench the positions of giant corporations and enrich those in the legal profession, rather than the actual inventors. After Zip2, when I realized that receiving a patent really just meant that you bought a lottery ticket to a lawsuit, I avoided them whenever possible.
At Tesla, however, we felt compelled to create patents out of concern that the big car companies would copy our technology and then use their massive manufacturing, sales and marketing power to overwhelm Tesla. We couldn’t have been more wrong. The unfortunate reality is the opposite: electric car programs (or programs for any vehicle that doesn’t burn hydrocarbons) at the major manufacturers are small to non-existent, constituting an average of far less than 1% of their total vehicle sales.
At best, the large automakers are producing electric cars with limited range in limited volume. Some produce no zero emission cars at all.
Given that annual new vehicle production is approaching 100 million per year and the global fleet is approximately 2 billion cars, it is impossible for Tesla to build electric cars fast enough to address the carbon crisis. By the same token, it means the market is enormous. Our true competition is not the small trickle of non-Tesla electric cars being produced, but rather the enormous flood of gasoline cars pouring out of the world’s factories every day.
We believe that Tesla, other companies making electric cars, and the world would all benefit from a common, rapidly-evolving technology platform.
Technology leadership is not defined by patents, which history has repeatedly shown to be small protection indeed against a determined competitor, but rather by the ability of a company to attract and motivate the world’s most talented engineers. We believe that applying the open source philosophy to our patents will strengthen rather than diminish Tesla’s position in this regard."

Doing this Tesla Motors has opened the doors for innovators and engineers to review and modify the original plans and designs of the motor company's model lines. In the hopes that these "outside eyes" see what can be done to make the cars better, safer, or all around redesign the looks.

 Tesla Motors is leading the way in the new era of innovation and collaboration for car makers, and I for one am ecstatic about the future of this concept. Imagine if every patent were released for open source. Imagine the college engineering students getting together with the Medical students to design and build a better prosthetic organ. Imagine the advancements we could see when the ideas and processes are open for peer review and  public review. Adding your ideas into a larger concept that can literally change the world and history as we know it.

But many people are against the idea of open sourcing and not patenting works and ideas. While many hold a belief in patents and copyrights being a foundational  need in society, there are those that dispel this myth and make the case for open dispersion of ideas.

Stephen Kinsella, a Patent Attorney who has rethought his stance on the use and viability of patents after consideration as to what the actual patent or copyright does has much to say on this topic.His books and articles explain these issues better. Patents said to be a protection of the original creator of any ideas, but they also have the effect as to limit and restrict any others from ever reproducing this thing later on even with their own property. It is a violation of the rights of use of another mans property.

This point can be seen clearly by those who reject the act of restricting rights of men for any reason and therefor is not a universal thought. The act of restricting what any other person can do with their property because a man has had a state give him a numbered file in a bureaucrats office.

Tesla Motors, for me, is moving the game to a whole new level and I am excited to see what the world makes of these cars with their new ability to redesign and innovate using the car as their base.

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.

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.

The Thought Police are out in full force.

I am not that much of a sports fan, in fact I rarely watch TV at all, but the Sterling/Clippers story has exited the sports arena and some people have entered it into the political sphere. The remarks made by a man speaking to his significant other in his own home have somehow made front page and back page news all over the world. It is no wonder to me on why this has taken place and why it has spread like the proverbial wildfire. The Thought Police of America have taken hold of the racial divide and the opinions and preferences of people; they have raised them up into a cloud of emotional conversation and illogical conclusions, all of this swept into their own idea of justice in the name of equality.

What Sterling did is no different than what has happened since the dawn of man and what is done by almost everyone in their daily lives, preferences and choices made by experiences both positive and negative. These experiences give us the ability to choose association with some and choose not to associate with others.  Are we to say that a mother choose to not send her children to a child care facility that employs someone with a criminal past, is somehow wrong in that decision?  Are we to say that any business that refuses to hire a convicted felon is somehow wrong in their choice? Are we to say that a family choosing where to live in a city should not have the ability to discern where they want to raise their young based on prior experiences or information available? Those examples are ridiculous in the eyes of most, but in relation to what Sterling has said it wouldn’t be far from an appropriate response from the public. These cases are not the same thing some will say. But are they not? Is the choice and right of association not the same in these cases as with Mr. Sterling’s comment?

Is racism real?

Yes, not doubt about that, it is a completely real issue. But to say that men not have the reason to decide on whom they wish to associate with is to say that the thoughts and choices of men are best left to public emotion and the will of the majority. Had Sterling said he didn’t want Asians or Mexicans to attend exhibitions held by the basketball team he owns would this had taken off as it has? We don’t know for sure and nothing is left but to speculate, I will leave that with the reader. The fear of being labeled a racist in 2014 is almost as bad as being labeled a Communist in the 1960’s. It has to do with social engineering I believe and to a certain extent social derision caused by the exploitation by the media of cases such as this one. Recently, as an example of this, the story of Cliven Bundy and the fight for the use of land against the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) took a serious turn when Mr. Bundy’s comments on the struggles and situations of African Americans and people from Mexico were construed by media outlets to taint him with a racial inferiority ideology. Though many of the volunteers who came to the aid of Mr. Bundy were of the mindset of personal liberty, these innocuous comments were skewed to turn supporters into deserters and to turn the tide on the situation.

Free Speech and Property Rights

In defense of all issues you will hear me say that the individual has the right to do as they wish so long as those wishes do not interfere with the rights of others. This case is no different. This as well as most issues really can be reduced to property rights and free speech. Let’s take Property Rights first. Sterling owns a basketball team; he does not own the stadium they play in at home games nor any of the stadiums they play on the road. He does not own any of the players, they are contracted employees. Mr. Sterling’s comment was to say that he did not want certain people to attend games at a home stadium but since he does not own said stadium he has no way to enforce this preference. He has no way to limit the audience to a specific race, gender, faith or any other collective of choice. Thus this issue is dead at the point of the Property Rights of the owner of the stadium. Likewise if those stadium owners see fit to exclude Sterling from entering their premises it would stand as the right of the owners to do so at their discretion. Second point, Sterling owns the team, not the players. They have the choice and right of association just as he does. If they see fit to leave the employment of Sterling on the basis of disagreement and have satisfied the employment contract or both parties mutually agree on the termination of the contract for difference of opinions or hostility in the workplace they may choose to do so. Third point, as Sterling owns the team; it is entered into a league by mutual beneficial gain; the league may revoke access or contract with the team at any time for any reason {if} there is no contract that must be satisfied or enforced. In this case the lifetime ban of Sterling is a consequence of his words and is in line with contractual precedence and private property rights and the right of association on behalf of the NBA.

On a side note, The National Basketball Association (NBA) has ordered Mr. Sterling to pay a fine of $2.5 million, the maximum amount allowed under the NBA Constitution. If this Constitution (contract) was personally signed by Sterling on the admittance of his team into the league or his place being recognized as the team owner by the Board of Directors of the NBA, Sterling would have no recourse but to pay the fine and accept the punishment of the league. Another part of the plan for punishment is the NBA Commissioner Adam Silver’s request to urge the Board of Governors to exercise its authority to force a sale of the team. The sale of private property should never be left to the will of any majority over the rightful owner; this is clearly a case of over stepping boundaries on the part of the Board of Governors, with exceptions to if this clause was drafted into the NBA constitution and personally signed and recognized by Sterling.

“The family had become in effect an extension of the Thought Police. It was a device by means of which everyone could be surrounded night and day by informers who knew him intimately.” ― George Orwell, 1984

Now after stating my view on that, let’s get back to the Thought Police.

The first thing that comes to mind in this case is the lack of privacy and the ability and acceptance by the public of a leak of secretly recorded information. This is a violation of the right to privacy of Sterling and leaves me to wonder the ultimate goal of such a leak. Was it a vendetta or was it to be used as a bargaining chip or blackmail of some sort? Was it purely out of distaste of his words and the only recourse the leaker thought of was to make this private conversation public information?

The emotional responses to this story give the impression that most followers of it have a long held disapproval of racial bigotry or intolerance, but is that the truth? It may well be established that a certain amount of this racial intolerance is accepted by a majority of the public through the guise of government laws, regulations and of course American history. It is no small thing to forget that for well over 100 years this country was segregated by this same ideology and it was widely accepted as a matter of fact of life for colonial and pre civil war America.  It is also stated that this same type of collective separation happens every day in the War on Drugs with a high majority of those incarcerated are done so under laws that predominantly target certain demographics and their habits and traits, their choices and preferences. Is this to say that what they do is wrong? Not necessarily. It is through the propagation of morals and values of the majority through government that the choices and inclinations of the single man are reduced to illegal acts punishable by detention, monetary theft, or the ultimate end of death by government forces.

It is a sad state of affairs when the conversation in a private home can be used to cause a wave of social disturbance and outrage. No threat to life or property had or has taken place and the thoughts of the comments were, though not innocent in nature, were not enforceable in the end. The Thought Police will win this one, as they usually do, in part for the fear of the people of being labeled something unsavory. 

Bastiat On Economic Protectionism

A PETITION From the Manufacturers of Candles, Tapers, Lanterns, sticks, Street Lamps, Snuffers, and Extinguishers, and from Producers of Tallow, Oil, Resin, Alcohol, and Generally of Everything Connected with Lighting.

To the Honourable Members of the Chamber of Deputies.

Open letter to the French Parliament, originally published in 1845 (Note of the Web Publisher)

Gentlemen:

You are on the right track. You reject abstract theories and have little regard for abundance and low prices. You concern yourselves mainly with the fate of the producer. You wish to free him from foreign competition, that is, to reserve the domestic market for domestic industry.
We come to offer you a wonderful opportunity for your — what shall we call it? Your theory? No, nothing is more deceptive than theory. Your doctrine? Your system? Your principle? But you dislike doctrines, you have a horror of systems, as for principles, you deny that there are any in political economy; therefore we shall call it your practice — your practice without theory and without principle.
We are suffering from the ruinous competition of a rival who apparently works under conditions so far superior to our own for the production of light that he is flooding the domestic market with it at an incredibly low price; for the moment he appears, our sales cease, all the consumers turn to him, and a branch of French industry whose ramifications are innumerable is all at once reduced to complete stagnation. This rival, which is none other than the sun, is waging war on us so mercilessly we suspect he is being stirred up against us by perfidious Albion (excellent diplomacy nowadays!), particularly because he has for that haughty island a respect that he does not show for us ^[1].
We ask you to be so good as to pass a law requiring the closing of all windows, dormers, skylights, inside and outside shutters, curtains, casements, bull's-eyes, deadlights, and blinds — in short, all openings, holes, chinks, and fissures through which the light of the sun is wont to enter houses, to the detriment of the fair industries with which, we are proud to say, we have endowed the country, a country that cannot, without betraying ingratitude, abandon us today to so unequal a combat.
Be good enough, honourable deputies, to take our request seriously, and do not reject it without at least hearing the reasons that we have to advance in its support.
First, if you shut off as much as possible all access to natural light, and thereby create a need for artificial light, what industry in France will not ultimately be encouraged?
If France consumes more tallow, there will have to be more cattle and sheep, and, consequently, we shall see an increase in cleared fields, meat, wool, leather, and especially manure, the basis of all agricultural wealth.
If France consumes more oil, we shall see an expansion in the cultivation of the poppy, the olive, and rapeseed. These rich yet soil-exhausting plants will come at just the right time to enable us to put to profitable use the increased fertility that the breeding of cattle will impart to the land.
Our moors will be covered with resinous trees. Numerous swarms of bees will gather from our mountains the perfumed treasures that today waste their fragrance, like the flowers from which they emanate. Thus, there is not one branch of agriculture that would not undergo a great expansion.
The same holds true of shipping. Thousands of vessels will engage in whaling, and in a short time we shall have a fleet capable of upholding the honour of France and of gratifying the patriotic aspirations of the undersigned petitioners, chandlers, etc.
But what shall we say of the specialities of Parisian manufacture? Henceforth you will behold gilding, bronze, and crystal in candlesticks, in lamps, in chandeliers, in candelabra sparkling in spacious emporia compared with which those of today are but stalls.
There is no needy resin-collector on the heights of his sand dunes, no poor miner in the depths of his black pit, who will not receive higher wages and enjoy increased prosperity.
It needs but a little reflection, gentlemen, to be convinced that there is perhaps not one Frenchman, from the wealthy stockholder of the Anzin Company to the humblest vendor of matches, whose condition would not be improved by the success of our petition.
We anticipate your objections, gentlemen; but there is not a single one of them that you have not picked up from the musty old books of the advocates of free trade. We defy you to utter a word against us that will not instantly rebound against yourselves and the principle behind all your policy.
Will you tell us that, though we may gain by this protection, France will not gain at all, because the consumer will bear the expense?
We have our answer ready:
You no longer have the right to invoke the interests of the consumer. You have sacrificed him whenever you have found his interests opposed to those of the producer. You have done so in order to encourage industry and to increase employment. For the same reason you ought to do so this time too.
Indeed, you yourselves have anticipated this objection. When told that the consumer has a stake in the free entry of iron, coal, sesame, wheat, and textiles, ``Yes,'' you reply, ``but the producer has a stake in their exclusion.'' Very well, surely if consumers have a stake in the admission of natural light, producers have a stake in its interdiction.
``But,'' you may still say, ``the producer and the consumer are one and the same person. If the manufacturer profits by protection, he will make the farmer prosperous. Contrariwise, if agriculture is prosperous, it will open markets for manufactured goods.'' Very well, If you grant us a monopoly over the production of lighting during the day, first of all we shall buy large amounts of tallow, charcoal, oil, resin, wax, alcohol, silver, iron, bronze, and crystal, to supply our industry; and, moreover, we and our numerous suppliers, having become rich, will consume a great deal and spread prosperity into all areas of domestic industry.
Will you say that the light of the sun is a gratuitous gift of Nature, and that to reject such gifts would be to reject wealth itself under the pretext of encouraging the means of acquiring it?
But if you take this position, you strike a mortal blow at your own policy; remember that up to now you have always excluded foreign goods because and in proportion as they approximate gratuitous gifts. You have onlyhalf as good a reason for complying with the demands of other monopolists as you have for granting our petition, which is in complete accord with your established policy; and to reject our demands precisely because they are better founded than anyone else's would be tantamount to accepting the equation: + x + = -; in other words, it would be to heap absurdity upon absurdity.
Labour and Nature collaborate in varying proportions, depending upon the country and the climate, in the production of a commodity. The part that Nature contributes is always free of charge; it is the part contributed by human labour that constitutes value and is paid for.
If an orange from Lisbon sells for half the price of an orange from Paris, it is because the natural heat of the sun, which is, of course, free of charge, does for the former what the latter owes to artificial heating, which necessarily has to be paid for in the market.
Thus, when an orange reaches us from Portugal, one can say that it is given to us half free of charge, or, in other words, at half price as compared with those from Paris.
Now, it is precisely on the basis of its being semigratuitous (pardon the word) that you maintain it should be barred. You ask: ``How can French labour withstand the competition of foreign labour when the former has to do all the work, whereas the latter has to do only half, the sun taking care of the rest?'' But if the fact that a product is half free of charge leads you to exclude it from competition, how can its being totally free of charge induce you to admit it into competition? Either you are not consistent, or you should, after excluding what is half free of charge as harmful to our domestic industry, exclude what is totally gratuitous with all the more reason and with twice the zeal.
To take another example: When a product — coal, iron, wheat, or textiles — comes to us from abroad, and when we can acquire it for less labour than if we produced it ourselves, the difference is a gratuitous gift that is conferred up on us. The size of this gift is proportionate to the extent of this difference. It is a quarter, a half, or three-quarters of the value of the product if the foreigner asks of us only three-quarters, one-half, or one-quarter as high a price. It is as complete as it can be when the donor, like the sun in providing us with light, asks nothing from us. The question, and we pose it formally, is whether what you desire for France is the benefit of consumption free of charge or the alleged advantages of onerous production. Make your choice, but be logical; for as long as you ban, as you do, foreign coal, iron, wheat, and textiles, in proportion as their price approaches zero, how inconsistent it would be to admit the light of the sun, whose price is zero all day long!

Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850), Sophismes économiques, 1845

Are there exclusions to Individual Liberty? Part 2

This was not meant to be a 2 part post but thinking more about what I wrote the other day about the ways that people see exclusions in what they consider liberty I wanted to touch on it in a few more ways. It seems to me that while some can claim they oppose something for themselves they would be happy to see the same or worse happening to someone else, or to be done by transferring power to another person or entity.

“Talking of Taxes”

When people talk of taxes there usually isn't too much happiness or joy in what say. Generally taxes are seen as a burden or nuisance on people and a hindrance on businesses. To some they are considered a price for what they consider “freedom” or put as just what we have to do to have a civilized society. There are some though that will defend increased taxation on others.  One recent example is the proposed added increased taxation of Wall Street (a separate post will cover this subject in detail later). Known by the name of The Robin Hood Tax it is being pushed by individuals who are partially involved with the Occupy movement, other group demographics make up its base of supporters. This new Tax scheme comes by way of the European Union (EU) some years ago. EU members proposed taxation on stock trades and income that is derived from them.

Labeled as the Robin Hood Tax gives it a wild chance of being successful even if not comprehended in its economic entirety and its effects would be the same as if a rise in income taxes were raised across the board. Proponents of the measure claim otherwise and say that it is only a tax on the derivatives of stock trading and speculative investing, this is false. Since stocks do not trade themselves and are held by corporations and companies who in turn are owned and operated by individuals, these business owners(individuals) would be liable for the increased tax and would then pass on that tax in the form of higher consumer costs and prices. Individuals also hold stocks and this bill would have the same effect on their trading. This is the exclusionary part of this mindset, which is individual taxation is too high “BUT” we need to raise taxation on businesses and corporations, because obviously these businesses and corporations are not run by individuals who are already taxed at higher rates. If it is too much for one then it is too much for all. Excluding yourself from the effects of increased taxation to pass it on to someone else is hypocritical to the idea of individual freedom. You cannot be against one kind of tax and then endorse another that you think doesn't affect you.

“Legalize it, and then TAX it!”

The push for legalized cannabis is another great example of this. We have all heard the conversation before, “We need to just legalize marijuana, AND then tax it.  There is no reason the government should say what goes in anyone’s body”.  No, No, NO, just stop it! There needs to be no more taxes, and what does it matter if they tell you what you put in your body if they are stealing from your pockets?  I still haven’t figured out why so many are willing to have a tax imposed on marijuana in the first place. As Colorado is seeing right now adding a tax to their legalized recreational use has led to more street purchases outside of the “Pot Shops”. Why? Because buying marijuana was tax exempt from the start, why in the world would you want to give the state any more money than what they already extract by force? But the majority of people would be ok with this, as it is seen as a “voluntary” tax, it is anything but. If it were truly voluntary, the shop owner would say,” Would you like to add tax to this purchase?” You could then say, “Yes” or “No”. That is voluntary Taxation.

The other discrepancy in the legalization argument is that of legalizing certain strains of cannabis to help with medical conditions, BUT to exclude the recreational use of all forms of cannabis. This is the case for Charlotte’s Web Medical strain of Marijuana being discussed in Sates across the nation. This is clearly an exclusionary liberty issue and falls under a hard line of hypocrisy.  The ability to discriminate the use of a plant is outrageous in itself, and then to make it illegal for those that use it outside of an authorized or accepted medical use is preposterous. This is the very essence of the individual liberty issue, “Can one do what others are prohibited from doing?”

“The Marriage Gap”

The arguments against same sex marriages are usually based on the simple premise that the federal government should allow it, or at least allow the state governments should decide for themselves. Where the contradiction on this issue comes into play is when you mention that if it were allowed that same sex couples be “legally” married, why not also allow marriages consisting of multiple people, or polygamy.  Here comes the “BUT” for most people. “I believe these two people can get married even though they are the same sex, BUT these 5 people cannot.”  Why is that? How can excluding any group of people or their beliefs from the same right to be married be considered liberty for all? Now personally I am all for the government not being included in contracts between individuals, and marriage as a contract would be included in my belief.  The idea is that these contracts need no government endorsement or approval and would not require intervention in cases of separation or breaches of contracts; private arbitration proves to be a substantially superior alternative. That’s just my view though; I don’t force its acceptance on anyone.

“The Government is overbearing, but it is needed in some cases.”

There has been a rise in the belief that our current government is overbearing, intrusive, and working outside of its designated powers, and it is in my opinion; at least on two of those charges. The current government is that of an empire run by revolving dictators and feared by its serfs. So how can people belief there is anything it is needed for? The mindset of minarchy or “limited government” as both the Republicans and Democrats will call it, is that no matter how bad things get, how intrusive it becomes, how much it impedes on the daily lives and restricts the natural rights of the people, it is needed in some way. This is possibly one of the biggest misconceptions for them to get over and many refuse to even try to understand the true meaning of anarchy. No Rulers, No Masters. 

The idea that government is needed for certain roles is a lack of understanding of how things can work and work more efficiently with no theft of wealth through taxation if ALL roles of government were replaced by market alternatives.

Again this is just a few more examples of what can be called exclusionary liberty. Can you think of anymore issues where this is a relevant discussion?

Taxing Voluntary Trade. It's what the government does best.

Did you know that businesses and individuals that use bartering to acquire products and services are held to rules from the IRS? The simple act of mutual trade between people is subject to oversight and increased taxation by the Federal Extortion Agency. So what are the rules and what are the penalties for not complying? Is there a way around the hand of government?

Just another way for the Government to steal wealth.

The IRS lays out a few things businesses should know before they mutually trade with others.

Barter exchanges.  A barter exchange is an organized marketplace where members barter products or services. Some exchanges operate out of an office and others over the Internet. All barter exchanges are required to issue Form 1099-B, Proceeds from Broker and Barter Exchange Transactions, annually. The exchange must give a copy of the form to its members and file a copy with the IRS.

Bartering income.  Barter and trade dollars are the same as real dollars for tax reporting purposes. If you barter, you must report on your tax return the fair market value of the products or services you received.

Tax implications.  Bartering is taxable in the year it occurs. The tax rules may vary based on the type of bartering that takes place. Barterers may owe income taxes, self-employment taxes, employment taxes or excise taxes on their bartering income.

Reporting rules.  How you report bartering varies depending on which form of bartering takes place. Generally, if you are in a trade or business you report bartering income on Form 1040, Schedule C, Profit or Loss from Business. You may be able to deduct certain costs you incurred to perform the bartering.

*According to the IRS website

All of this is a clear indication that the IRS thinks that whether currency is exchanged or not, the transfer of products and services is subject to taxation.

“In 1982, the IRS recognized barter as legal tender and barter exchanges as third-party record keepers, like accountants and banks. The exchanges must report barter income to the IRS on form 1099B”, says Karen E. Klein in a 2012 article for Bloomberg Businessweek.

Even though the government has taken this stance against voluntary exchange a free market system has come about. In an article posted to LewRockwell.com, writer Karen De Coster gives an explanation of a localized system of community barter. The Roanoke Valley Time Bank is a website devoted to help local individuals find help, services and other things on a system of barter and what the system calls “Time Dollars”. These dollars are obtained by helping or bartering some time, products or services to other members, time dollars can then be used on personal wants or needs, simply posting the job or product details of what is wanted and others barter their time dollars to help you. What a fantastic idea! What beautiful Anarchy this is!

 The mission statement for the Roanoke Valley time Bank is as follows:

“The mission of the Roanoke Valley TimeBank is to foster the well being of our community by providing a member-driven network of services that strengthens social bonds, encourages reciprocity, enhances our local economy, and builds on a  foundation of respect and equality.  Exchanges among members are recorded, honored, and rewarded through the use of "Time Dollars," a currency of equally valued services that empowers people to utilize their assets and enhance their lives, neighborhoods, and communities.”

Roanoke Valley Time Bank is part of a larger network of nationwide Time Banks.

This subject originally found its way into my brain via an article in a local newspaper by a tax preparer. He makes a point that though businesses and individuals are required to report these mutual trades very few actually do. I suppose others find this kind of theft undue and inhibitive to the creation of wealth or capital. In an age where one could seek out professional help through the internet on a voluntary basis, federal regulators try their hardest to punish cooperative help and to burden the individuals with compliance to unsavory rules and regulations. 

Florida Liberty Summit Ron Paul

Ron Paul walks to the stage with the same fire and energy that he showed during both his 2008 and 2012 Presidential Campaigns. As he received his well deserved admiration and applause, he remained humble and grounded. The crowd's noise continues into the beginning of his speech.

He begins his speech with congratulating and recognizing the Campaign for Liberty director John Tate and the Florida director Mark Cross. Dr. Paul tells the crowd about his time in Congress and the dangers and pitfalls to seniority in the House and Senate, that seniority does not always to lead to positive results.

As he speaks, the crowd pays close attention and hold on to every word the figure head of the Liberty Movement speaks.

Ron speaks on the issue of Russia and those in Washington who remain committed to attacking, reminding the group that the Neo Conservative war chant is "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb!" Even those on the other side of the proverbial political side continue their silent opposition to opposing this war versus all those committed by President Bush Jr. and his father.

Edward Snowden is mentioned as a hero and the view of Dr. Paul and that of the crowd is that he should be granted amnesty and treated as the teller of truth rather than vilified as he is now by the political powers that be.

He speaks of pulling out of the United Nations and NATO altogether, this goes over quite well with those in the room. As the topic turns to the Ukraine situation and the doctor's view is the same as it has always been. Non-Intervention is the only answer that needs to be considered.

Turning the topic to the economics of the country and the world, he says that wage control, central banking, energy monopoly by government has stifled the economic growth of countries around the world. Talking about the bailouts of General Motors and its affects, He says," People want to say we helped save GM. No we didn't save GM, to save it we should have let it fail naturally without government intervention".

"Where does the Federal Reserve get the money to buy up the treasury securities and bonds? They print it out of thin air!" And this has to be stopped. Most in this room would agree to the simple auditing of the Federal Reserve but that wouldn't serve any purpose but to show the problem. It would then take them years to get the idea to end the Fed and end the monopoly of money creation and its massive manipulation.

He moved quickly from topic to topic, getting applause on each one for his explanations and solutions for the problems that he sees.

   "The worse the problems get the more the people are going to turn away from the Government."

Ron speaks of being hopeful on the ending of the war on Drugs and its detrimental effects on America since it's inception. Bringing to attention that Non-Violent "criminals" are being held longer while violent offenders, Rapists and Murderers are being released.

Not to undermine the message he spreads or the ideals he holds, this was a speech to hit on points of agreement and of relative self education to the crowd assembled.


                                                       "The Revolution is in the Ideas"

Arizona and the Discrimination Law?

Arizona became a hotspot for news earlier this month due to its highly contested “Religious Freedom Bill” or as the opposition calls it “The Anti-Gay bill” or “The Freedom to Discriminate Bill”. What is Arizona Senate Bill 1062[1]? How does it affect the populace? Is it Constitutional? Is it a way for more people to find an excuse to discriminate? Let’s take a look at it from a view angles and you can make up your own mind.

Is Arizona Senate Bill 1062 Constitutional?

The United States Constitution DOES NOT lay out specific stipulations or protections for the lifestyle choices of individuals. Why Not? The US Constitution is a blanket document, meant to encompass every single person regardless of race, creed, nationality, or preference. The only mention of the separation of creeds is the Commerce clauses in regards to Native American Tribes. The Constitution does however lay out some other protections and stipulations. The 10^th amendment spells out that the powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution shall be retained by each individual state, States Rights, but is this issue of state’s rights. Yes and No in my opinion. The Arizona Government should not in any way interfere in the religious or business practices of any individuals or groups. Do they have the power to? Absolutely, that power has been vested to them by the citizens of the state. Constitutionally speaking the entirety of this bill is admissible by the First Amendment , “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Is it a discrimination bill?

Kate Kendall [2] of the National Center for Lesbian Rights notes, “It’s a flat out violation of well-established protections against discrimination based on race and gender”.  First let’s define discrimination. Merriam-Webster [3] defines it as: the practice of unfairly treating a person or group of people differently from other people or groups of people

: the ability to recognize the difference between things that are of good quality and those that are not

: the ability to understand that one thing is different from another thing

The latter 2 definitions sound like decision making or comparative value to me. The first definition is a little more complex. Discrimination due to variances of color, creed, nationality, gender whatever is not new, actually it is very old, and it is part of the human condition. To analyze and value each separate thing or person differently is a matter of unconscious thought and conscious action. The ability to differentiate subjective values is what drives everyday human existence. Red car or blue car? Bagel for breakfast or eggs and toast? This job or that one?  All of these and more are small discriminations or choices based on previous knowledge, experiences or beliefs. Is this to say that actions that lead someone to treat others differently for preferences or uncontrollable circumstances are wrong?  Moral thought is to the individual’s subjective value or relative value; you cannot collect nor legislate morality or popular opinion without discriminating or leaving someone out.

Where does religion come into this?

The bill is being touted by some as “The Religious Freedom Bill” and as it is written it would seem this is the driving force behind its existence.  The bill allows business owners, pastors or any individual to assert religious beliefs when refusing service to gay, lesbian, and transgender people; among others. As written can  this bill can be construed to allow discrimination between faiths, as to say that those of Jewish faith could refuse service to any other practitioners of any opposing religion and vice versa.  Religious Freedom is a cornerstone to this country and to millions of people across it. It has been the foundation for numerous civil cases and appeals since its inauguration into the Constitution. It is an inherent right to be able to practice whichever faith one chooses without hindrance. This bill does not in any way stop that right but furthers the right of refusal based on religious beliefs. As written it would only protect those business owners in court who based on their religious beliefs refused service to someone.

Is this a case of Private Property Rights?

When this story first broke this was my assessment. The right of any property owner to refuse or allow whatever actions to take place on such property is the foundation for private property rights. This bill would allow these business owners to thereby escape from any suit in regards to this refusal of service on the basis of religious right. Is this discrimination? Yes and No. It is the sole decision of the property owners on how to handle their business. If a property owner dislikes tall people and makes a policy to not serve tall people he has reduced his marketable share in the economic sector, this is true of any restriction or regulation placed by business owners, on the other hand government does this without regard to marketable shares to very business with their ever increasing amounts of regulations and red tape politics. Private Property is a key element to a free society and as such should be protected by those who strive for free markets and economic prosperity.

What this bill is not.

In reading this bill and its amendments I have found no reference to gays, lesbians, same sex couples, or any other group of people. I have not seen in its pages any regards to any specific lifestyle choice or even religious choice. It is completely ambiguous in its terminology and meanings and would be highly contested if allowed to pass.

Think about this for a moment.

This bill, which was vetoed by Governor Jan Brewer, was a perfect storm of emotion over logic and fear over reason. Any discrimination that could go on with its passing can still go on after its veto, though the property owners run risk of civil suit if they attempt it. In my mind it is simply a case of property rights and owner’s discretion over religious beliefs or any form of discrimination. But I leave it for you to decide.

[1] http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062p.pdf

[2] http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/arizona-bill-controversy/push-behind-arizona-religious-freedom-law-has-long-history-n38611

[3] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discrimination

Image Link https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=MyaeCqzn8lHymM&tbnid=bcyM1Fv0GRui9M:&ved=0CAQQjB0&url=http%3A%2F%2Fuptownmagazine.com%2F2014%2F02%2Farizona-governor-vetoes-sb-1062-transcript-remarks%2F&ei=eQ8VU96CJ82fkAeU4YHACQ&bvm=bv.62286460,d.eW0&psig=AFQjCNFrPthdy52DOPMPN9uPKknaUCaZ1Q&ust=1393975513306556

Other links:

http://m.blogs.christianpost.com/time-for-everything/transcript-of-arizona-state-bill-1062-20253/

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2014/02/jan-brewer-veto-speech-in-arizona.html

http://www.azcentral.com/news/politics/articles/20140227arizona-spotlight-swings-new-bill.html