Sunday, January 11, 2009
Is Saying 'God' Now Unconstitutional?
By, TJ Madison
Here we are one week from the Presidential Inauguration, and I find it humorous what people will find time to get worked up about.
"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States... So help me God."
Now, if you were an intelligent American, is there any possible way, you could have a problem with any of the words in the Presidential Oath?
Well, they found an idiot that does.
With everything that's going on in this country right now, trillion dollar deficits, a war on two fronts and a long recession ahead of us, there's an atheist activist, Michael Nenow, that has made it it his own personal crusade to remove the words, "So help me God", from the January 20th inauguration of Barack Hussein Obama. A U.S. District Court Judge will actually hear this frivolous lawsuit next week.
If anything, some American should sue the President-elect, citing that his campaign promises are a direct contrast of that entire Oath. Every promise Obama has made about education, health-care, the environment and several others are, by definition, unconstitutional.
I challenge any leftist to find the words: education, health-care or the environment in the Constitution. And when you can't find them, refer to the Tenth Amendment, "...powers that the Constitution did not delegate to the United States or prohibit to the states were reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Nenow's ultimate goal, of course, is to rid the entire public square of all things religious. While citing the 'separation of Church and state' mantra, so frequently used by the godless socialists of the left; a mantra that is not in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence or any other important historical document.
For the record, even though I do not attend church regularly, I strongly believe in God, and I don't have any problem with atheists-- as long as they have a love for individual liberty and free markets.
Groups like the American Civil Liberties Union have a lot of card-carrying members in the libertarian movement and that's fine. Though I will never understand why, seeing that the ACLU is a fraud and is no friend of liberty. Those libertarians may see it a little different however, they choose to ignore the nation our Founders wanted.
It is clear that the Founders did not want a Theocracy. However, by ACLU 'standards' of today, the Declaration of Independence could never had been ratified in it's current form with a word like 'Creator' included.
In fact, every session of Congress begins with a prayer by a preacher, who has been financially compensated by the taxpayer since 1777. So ask yourself this: if the Men who actually wrote the Constitution didn't have a problem with a paid preacher, why in the world would it be deemed unconstitutional to utter the words 'So help me God' in an inauguration?
It's not unconstitutional. It's just ridiculous and petty, like the entire leftist movement.
TJ Madison is a libertarian-Republican pundit living in Fond du Lac, WI. The views are his own, and not necessarily those of all contributors at AgentsOfLiberty.com
Thursday, January 8, 2009
My Case for Anarchy
I received this e-mail from TJ:
________
TJ Madison to me show details 7:09 AM (15 hours ago) Reply
I had an idea for you to include in your next article.
I thought you could expand on your anarchism. I believe most people have an ignorant idea of anarchy, and maybe you can explain that it's more than just lawless teenagers with bones in their nose and purple Mohawks.
Just throwing it out there.
--
tj2
Stop Creeping Socialism
http://agentsofliberty.com/
________
I am against the idea of purple Mohawks (on a purely aesthetic basis) so I thought I’d take an extra day, make this an extra-long article, and show why I believe in anarcho-capitalism. I like to separate this into two areas in my head, which I’ll call economical and moral in this article.
My Economic Reasoning
Before I begin I’d like to point out that I’m not near intelligent enough to come up with this stuff on my own, even though it may seem that way with my potentially poor explanation, and I will give some further reading at the end of this section or those who wish to see my sources and explore these theories deeper.
To start I need to explain the profit/loss measuring stick used by entrepreneurs. In a free market prices are used to dictate where scarce resources (any resource that is) are allocated, this happens when people who demand the resource more pay more for it (the resource is then allocated to those people). Through the chaos of a free-market and millions of transactions prices do a magnificent job of allocating resources to their best use, somehow in the end there is order and there are an extremely small amount of shortages, because when the demand for a certain good goes up, the price follows and as entrepreneurs are encouraged to find better ways to find the materials, or even enter the business, the higher price allows the producer to pay more for his necessary materials which allocates them away from other areas. This happens every second of the day as the market adjusts.
Because prices dictate where scarce resources need to be allocated entrepreneurs have a very easy measuring stick as to whether the market thinks the resources should be allocated in the ways they are using, this is profit and loss. If an entrepreneur is operating with a profit it means the market wants the resources to be allocated to that use, if not the then the market thinks there is a better use, and without any government intervention it just about always eventually diverts to that use (because the entrepreneur is losing money).
Before I go on here's a summary of the above: Because resources are scarce those who demand them the most pay higher prices, those higher price allows the market to allocate the resources in the best way, following this entrepreneurs will know how the resources should be allocated by their profit or loss.
The great economist Ludwig von Mises came up with the Calculation Problem Argument that said, basically, without this profit or loss measuring stick anything operating without the use of prices has no way of knowing if what they are doing is actually working.
Before going further it is necessary that the readers acknowledge that government does not operate on a profit/loss system if some area of government needs more money they give it more money through inflation of taxation, other than these two sins government has no way of getting money.
As a result of the two things in the preceding paragraphs government logically does not and literally cannot work in any way.
This does not mean there should only be government roads or defense or courts, it means that government cannot work in any way.
Moral Reasoning
Libertarianism is essentially a connecting of two things: a non-aggression axiom and property rights.
The non-aggression axiom says it is fundamentally wrong for anyone to initiate force; it is basically the Golden Rule and is a must in basically any religion.
Property rights say that every man has a right to his property, property being something with which one has mixed his labor or for which he has traded. “Thou shalt not steal,” covers this in my book.
As with the economic reasoning this logically must be taken as an absolute (for the Jews or Christians there is not a footnote after the ten commandments, explaining when to use them, they are to be used at all times).
Now, remember the two ways government can sustain itself: inflation and taxation, let’s explore these two.
First, inflation, inflation is the increasing of the money supply (many people think inflation is rising prices, this is the result of inflation, not the definition). The increasing of the money supply is essentially counterfeiting (regardless of who does it). Because this allows some people to get something for nothing I am morally against any form of inflation, and in fact believe that the abolishing of the federal reserve and return to a commodity money is what should be done, but that’s for a different article.
Second, is taxation, taxation is basically a fancy word for theft; it is the forceful taking of money. If you think there is no force involved, try not paying your taxes.
Now, combining: the fact that the only way the government can get money is by stealing, either through direct taxation or inflation, with the necessary absolutism of bringing together a non-aggression axiom with property rights in every single case it is morally impermissible for a government to exist. Even if government did somehow work economically I would still be morally against it for these reasons.
Many people simply do not take this moral argument to mind when they think about government or anarchism, the next time you think about how good the national defense is or about how good it is to have welfare, then ponder if you think it is OK that this was done, by definition, through the forceful stealing of someone else’s hard-earned money.
Conclusion
In conclusion if I have not converted you to my way of thinking I at least hope you no longer may think I am not just a lawless teenager with a purple Mohawk and a bone in my nose (well an extra one).
Further
Most of the reading I have done in this subject was done with printed articles whose links were subsequently lost, here are some of the things that survived, even if it isn’t as comprehensive as I would have liked.
Site Updates
I’ve changed the appearance of the main site. I tried to make it look cleaner and changed the positioning of some aspects.
With the update I created a new poll which asks the reader’s take on anarchy after taking in my arguments, please vote in the poll and then comment on this article with your take.
Also, the short book series will be back next week as my next recommended book goes along with the upcoming economic topic.
Quote of the Week
“On the free market, everyone earns according to his productive value in satisfying consumer desires. Under statist distribution, everyone earns in proportion to the amount he can plunder from the producers."
-Murray Rothbard
________
TJ Madison to me show details 7:09 AM (15 hours ago) Reply
I had an idea for you to include in your next article.
I thought you could expand on your anarchism. I believe most people have an ignorant idea of anarchy, and maybe you can explain that it's more than just lawless teenagers with bones in their nose and purple Mohawks.
Just throwing it out there.
--
tj2
Stop Creeping Socialism
http://agentsofliberty.com/
________
I am against the idea of purple Mohawks (on a purely aesthetic basis) so I thought I’d take an extra day, make this an extra-long article, and show why I believe in anarcho-capitalism. I like to separate this into two areas in my head, which I’ll call economical and moral in this article.
My Economic Reasoning
Before I begin I’d like to point out that I’m not near intelligent enough to come up with this stuff on my own, even though it may seem that way with my potentially poor explanation, and I will give some further reading at the end of this section or those who wish to see my sources and explore these theories deeper.
To start I need to explain the profit/loss measuring stick used by entrepreneurs. In a free market prices are used to dictate where scarce resources (any resource that is) are allocated, this happens when people who demand the resource more pay more for it (the resource is then allocated to those people). Through the chaos of a free-market and millions of transactions prices do a magnificent job of allocating resources to their best use, somehow in the end there is order and there are an extremely small amount of shortages, because when the demand for a certain good goes up, the price follows and as entrepreneurs are encouraged to find better ways to find the materials, or even enter the business, the higher price allows the producer to pay more for his necessary materials which allocates them away from other areas. This happens every second of the day as the market adjusts.
Because prices dictate where scarce resources need to be allocated entrepreneurs have a very easy measuring stick as to whether the market thinks the resources should be allocated in the ways they are using, this is profit and loss. If an entrepreneur is operating with a profit it means the market wants the resources to be allocated to that use, if not the then the market thinks there is a better use, and without any government intervention it just about always eventually diverts to that use (because the entrepreneur is losing money).
Before I go on here's a summary of the above: Because resources are scarce those who demand them the most pay higher prices, those higher price allows the market to allocate the resources in the best way, following this entrepreneurs will know how the resources should be allocated by their profit or loss.
The great economist Ludwig von Mises came up with the Calculation Problem Argument that said, basically, without this profit or loss measuring stick anything operating without the use of prices has no way of knowing if what they are doing is actually working.
Before going further it is necessary that the readers acknowledge that government does not operate on a profit/loss system if some area of government needs more money they give it more money through inflation of taxation, other than these two sins government has no way of getting money.
As a result of the two things in the preceding paragraphs government logically does not and literally cannot work in any way.
This does not mean there should only be government roads or defense or courts, it means that government cannot work in any way.
Moral Reasoning
Libertarianism is essentially a connecting of two things: a non-aggression axiom and property rights.
The non-aggression axiom says it is fundamentally wrong for anyone to initiate force; it is basically the Golden Rule and is a must in basically any religion.
Property rights say that every man has a right to his property, property being something with which one has mixed his labor or for which he has traded. “Thou shalt not steal,” covers this in my book.
As with the economic reasoning this logically must be taken as an absolute (for the Jews or Christians there is not a footnote after the ten commandments, explaining when to use them, they are to be used at all times).
Now, remember the two ways government can sustain itself: inflation and taxation, let’s explore these two.
First, inflation, inflation is the increasing of the money supply (many people think inflation is rising prices, this is the result of inflation, not the definition). The increasing of the money supply is essentially counterfeiting (regardless of who does it). Because this allows some people to get something for nothing I am morally against any form of inflation, and in fact believe that the abolishing of the federal reserve and return to a commodity money is what should be done, but that’s for a different article.
Second, is taxation, taxation is basically a fancy word for theft; it is the forceful taking of money. If you think there is no force involved, try not paying your taxes.
Now, combining: the fact that the only way the government can get money is by stealing, either through direct taxation or inflation, with the necessary absolutism of bringing together a non-aggression axiom with property rights in every single case it is morally impermissible for a government to exist. Even if government did somehow work economically I would still be morally against it for these reasons.
Many people simply do not take this moral argument to mind when they think about government or anarchism, the next time you think about how good the national defense is or about how good it is to have welfare, then ponder if you think it is OK that this was done, by definition, through the forceful stealing of someone else’s hard-earned money.
Conclusion
In conclusion if I have not converted you to my way of thinking I at least hope you no longer may think I am not just a lawless teenager with a purple Mohawk and a bone in my nose (well an extra one).
Further
Most of the reading I have done in this subject was done with printed articles whose links were subsequently lost, here are some of the things that survived, even if it isn’t as comprehensive as I would have liked.
Site Updates
I’ve changed the appearance of the main site. I tried to make it look cleaner and changed the positioning of some aspects.
With the update I created a new poll which asks the reader’s take on anarchy after taking in my arguments, please vote in the poll and then comment on this article with your take.
Also, the short book series will be back next week as my next recommended book goes along with the upcoming economic topic.
Quote of the Week
“On the free market, everyone earns according to his productive value in satisfying consumer desires. Under statist distribution, everyone earns in proportion to the amount he can plunder from the producers."
-Murray Rothbard
Sunday, January 4, 2009
New Years Resolution: How About More Liberty!
By, TJ Madison
My father was right.
As long as I can remember, My Dad (Pops Racer) always made sure he went to bed BEFORE midnight on New Year's eve. It was his way of letting us know that it was a waste of time to stay up, just to see the calender change to January. One could chalk it up to spite, but actually, for as long as I can remember, he's never been up past ten o'clock on any other day of the year, so why should New Years Eve be any different?
Because! It was New Years Eve! The calender is no-longer going to say 2008 anymore. It will be 2009 now! Can't you see how exiting that is?
It took me about 35 years into my life, but now I know how 'lame' those statements really are.
I think it still could be exciting for a teenager to stay up, waiting for the countdown until midnight with their siblings. It's sort of like believing in Santa Claus when you're a child. When you get in your 20's, it's just another reason to drink and be stupid. Like people in their 20's need another reason to drink and be stupid, they already have St. Patrick's Day, their birthday, all their friend's birthdays, and every Friday and Saturday night of the year.
That's at least 120 days per year to get drunk and act stupid. And if you're attending a major university, you can double that number of the times to be drunk and stupid; or as Pops Racer would say: P.U.D. (pissed-up drunk).
I'm not sure how Pops felt about New Year's resolutions, though. I imagine it would be the same as what he thought about New Year's in general. And if that is so, then he would be proud of me for not bothering with New Year's resolutions. Because when has one ever been kept? For me, never. So I stopped making them about five years ago.
I think the best I ever did was to avoid mayonnaise until the middle of February. And if you knew me, you'd realize what an accomplishment that really was. However, I've now discovered that totally depriving yourself of something you enjoy is foolish. Do I use the same amount of mayo that I used to? No. I learned to make a sandwich taste just fine with a little bit. Let's just say, that when I die, the cause of death will not be 'too much' mayonnaise!
Let me say one more thing on the subject: It's OK to have a resolution to improve your life, but why do you have to wait until the beginning of a new year? It's just as easy to start at the beginning of a week, or the first of any month. Because when your current New Year's resolution fizzles out January 22, don't wait until January 1st of 2010 to make an improvement to your life, try again February 1st.
All of that being said, I'm going to make some resolutions, not for me, but for my fellow citizens and co-workers.
Why? Because I'm sick of the 'nanny-state' politics that are devouring our precious individual liberties in every corner of this great land. For example, even smaller cities and towns are turning to more and more government intrusion on personal freedom. In big cities it has already been lost: no smoking, no trans-fats, no driving with cell phones, no driving without seat belts, random 'checkpoints' by the police for drunk drivers and so on.
I'm actually able to listen to Chicago radio stations in my small Wisconsin city, while listening to the traffic report one of the highways had a back up of a couple of miles. No big deal, right? It is Chicago after all. Well, the back up of cars was created by a police checkpoint to-- wait for this-- make sure drivers had their seat belts on!
What the bigger cities of America have succumb to, is indeed frighting, however, more scary, it's coming to our smaller towns and cities. Brought to you mainly by leftist do-gooders who can't mind their own business. I know this because, I work with people like this, and people sit on our Common Council who want this tyranny.
Now, people in our city lost the freedom to smoke in restaurants three years ago. In 2008, the local people lost the freedom to smoke in bars and taverns.
Yes, bars and taverns! Aren't bars generally 'seedy' type places where certain people can go to fulfill some of their elementary vices, such as drinking, smoking, maybe a fling with someone you just met, among other things.
So let me get this straight, you're now able to go to a bar of your choice, drink alcohol and destroy your liver, eat a cholesterol filled pizza that clogs your arteries, take a girl home (that you just met) and possibly end up with several disease's, and gamble a sizable portion of your paycheck. BUT, GOD FORBID, you should leave the establishment with a trace of 'second-hand' smoke in your system. A choice you made before going in there. (For the record: this writer thinks the affects of 'second-hand' smoke are greatly exaggerated for political purposes. And even if I'm wrong about that, nobody puts a gun to your head to go into a bar).
So in 2009, if you have any power to make laws, or persuade lawmakers, make a New Years resolution to side with individual liberty before siding with the majority that wish to take it away.
TJ Madison is a pundit living in Fond du Lac, WI. He describes his views as a libertarian-Republican who is fighting creeping socialism on a daily basis.
My father was right.
As long as I can remember, My Dad (Pops Racer) always made sure he went to bed BEFORE midnight on New Year's eve. It was his way of letting us know that it was a waste of time to stay up, just to see the calender change to January. One could chalk it up to spite, but actually, for as long as I can remember, he's never been up past ten o'clock on any other day of the year, so why should New Years Eve be any different?
Because! It was New Years Eve! The calender is no-longer going to say 2008 anymore. It will be 2009 now! Can't you see how exiting that is?
It took me about 35 years into my life, but now I know how 'lame' those statements really are.
I think it still could be exciting for a teenager to stay up, waiting for the countdown until midnight with their siblings. It's sort of like believing in Santa Claus when you're a child. When you get in your 20's, it's just another reason to drink and be stupid. Like people in their 20's need another reason to drink and be stupid, they already have St. Patrick's Day, their birthday, all their friend's birthdays, and every Friday and Saturday night of the year.
That's at least 120 days per year to get drunk and act stupid. And if you're attending a major university, you can double that number of the times to be drunk and stupid; or as Pops Racer would say: P.U.D. (pissed-up drunk).
I'm not sure how Pops felt about New Year's resolutions, though. I imagine it would be the same as what he thought about New Year's in general. And if that is so, then he would be proud of me for not bothering with New Year's resolutions. Because when has one ever been kept? For me, never. So I stopped making them about five years ago.
I think the best I ever did was to avoid mayonnaise until the middle of February. And if you knew me, you'd realize what an accomplishment that really was. However, I've now discovered that totally depriving yourself of something you enjoy is foolish. Do I use the same amount of mayo that I used to? No. I learned to make a sandwich taste just fine with a little bit. Let's just say, that when I die, the cause of death will not be 'too much' mayonnaise!
Let me say one more thing on the subject: It's OK to have a resolution to improve your life, but why do you have to wait until the beginning of a new year? It's just as easy to start at the beginning of a week, or the first of any month. Because when your current New Year's resolution fizzles out January 22, don't wait until January 1st of 2010 to make an improvement to your life, try again February 1st.
All of that being said, I'm going to make some resolutions, not for me, but for my fellow citizens and co-workers.
Why? Because I'm sick of the 'nanny-state' politics that are devouring our precious individual liberties in every corner of this great land. For example, even smaller cities and towns are turning to more and more government intrusion on personal freedom. In big cities it has already been lost: no smoking, no trans-fats, no driving with cell phones, no driving without seat belts, random 'checkpoints' by the police for drunk drivers and so on.
I'm actually able to listen to Chicago radio stations in my small Wisconsin city, while listening to the traffic report one of the highways had a back up of a couple of miles. No big deal, right? It is Chicago after all. Well, the back up of cars was created by a police checkpoint to-- wait for this-- make sure drivers had their seat belts on!
What the bigger cities of America have succumb to, is indeed frighting, however, more scary, it's coming to our smaller towns and cities. Brought to you mainly by leftist do-gooders who can't mind their own business. I know this because, I work with people like this, and people sit on our Common Council who want this tyranny.
Now, people in our city lost the freedom to smoke in restaurants three years ago. In 2008, the local people lost the freedom to smoke in bars and taverns.
Yes, bars and taverns! Aren't bars generally 'seedy' type places where certain people can go to fulfill some of their elementary vices, such as drinking, smoking, maybe a fling with someone you just met, among other things.
So let me get this straight, you're now able to go to a bar of your choice, drink alcohol and destroy your liver, eat a cholesterol filled pizza that clogs your arteries, take a girl home (that you just met) and possibly end up with several disease's, and gamble a sizable portion of your paycheck. BUT, GOD FORBID, you should leave the establishment with a trace of 'second-hand' smoke in your system. A choice you made before going in there. (For the record: this writer thinks the affects of 'second-hand' smoke are greatly exaggerated for political purposes. And even if I'm wrong about that, nobody puts a gun to your head to go into a bar).
So in 2009, if you have any power to make laws, or persuade lawmakers, make a New Years resolution to side with individual liberty before siding with the majority that wish to take it away.
TJ Madison is a pundit living in Fond du Lac, WI. He describes his views as a libertarian-Republican who is fighting creeping socialism on a daily basis.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
socialist Bush; I'm an Anarchist; Speculators; Short Book
It's about Friggin' Time!
The Washington Times is reporting that the RNC will accuse Bush of embracing socialism.
A member even said, "We can't be a party of small government, free markets and low taxes while supporting bailouts and nationalizing industries, which lead to big government, socialism and high taxes at the expense of individual liberty and freedoms."
While its news to me that the Republican party is one of small government, free markets and low taxes, this is a very good revelation, hopefully it will lead to a more libertarian-Republican party in the future.
I am an Anarchist
I've been putting off this decision for a while, but after a bunch of reading over the break, I've severed any theories I'd had concerning good government, or at least necessary government, in any area, and now consider myself an Anarcho-Capitalist, in the tradition of Murray Rothbard. For more on Anarcho-Capitalism, see this: this
Previously, I was a minarchist, which is what TJ is, meaning I believe in very minimal government, only in the form of courts, and defense (police and military), but I now believe that is not very reasonable; if it is bad for the government to have a monopoly in any place it is bad in all places, the same principle applies to everything.
Speculators
This subject probably would have been more interesting a few months ago, but I'm running short on Economic topics I haven't already covered, so I'll post about it today.
By speculator I mean the type of entrepreneur who tries to gain by speculating in the future price of something, usually a commodity. Speculators are typically scorned by the media, usually because they make money for 'nothing,' (maybe a not-so-surprising event was all the right-wing talking heads teaming up against the Oil speculators this summer; and I thought they were pro-Capitalism).
However, speculators provide a huge service in the market; since I'm from the mid-west I'll use corn as an example.
Say there is Wisconsin farmer toiling through the spring planting all of his seeds for the corn, all the while worrying about the future price and losing sleep over it. Along comes a speculator who offers him $5 per bushel (not accurate) for all the corn he grows, speculating that it will be higher. The farmer considers it and takes the offer signing a contract in April.
As fall comes closer the price of corn varies widely on speculation that ethanol funding will be stopped or weather will be better than usual, but the farmer does not need to worry about it, because he has a set price, it is also likely the speculator does not because he may have a more diversified portfolio than the farmer could have managed.
Finally, Fall comes and three situations can occur:
Short Books, number one Concise Guide to Economics
By definition libertarians are geared more towards work than laziness, because of this not many of them have a lot of time to read a thousand pages per week.
I've decided to start a series, where each week I'll review a great and short (less than 200 pages) book, these will all be on economics, history or politics in some way.
The Concise Guide to Economics
The book is 119 pages, has 37 chapters and was written by Jim Cox, who is an associate professor of economics and political science at Georgia Perimeter College. The book is currently in its third edition.
Cox said in the introduction that his aim with the book is to allow people to grasp free-market economics with very little effort, the book accomplishes this to a great extent.
Though I felt I had a lot of knowledge on all the non-Keynesian stuff (it isn't pro-Keynes, it refutes it), the book showed me arguments I had never though of and cemented my knowledge in many key topics.
Its format also makes it great for future reference, in prepping for the Speculation paragraphs above, I just flipped the book open found the chapter, and read it in two minutes (all the chapters are between 1-4 pages long usually about 2.5, I read the whole book in about two hours).
Finally, Cox includes 5 or more references to longer books on each subject. I consider this book a necessary possession for anyone serious about debating economics maters.
Aquinas is massively enjoying his vacation of reading and non-stop logic relative to the socialist college where he refines his debating skills daily.
The Washington Times is reporting that the RNC will accuse Bush of embracing socialism.
A member even said, "We can't be a party of small government, free markets and low taxes while supporting bailouts and nationalizing industries, which lead to big government, socialism and high taxes at the expense of individual liberty and freedoms."
While its news to me that the Republican party is one of small government, free markets and low taxes, this is a very good revelation, hopefully it will lead to a more libertarian-Republican party in the future.
I am an Anarchist
I've been putting off this decision for a while, but after a bunch of reading over the break, I've severed any theories I'd had concerning good government, or at least necessary government, in any area, and now consider myself an Anarcho-Capitalist, in the tradition of Murray Rothbard. For more on Anarcho-Capitalism, see this: this
Previously, I was a minarchist, which is what TJ is, meaning I believe in very minimal government, only in the form of courts, and defense (police and military), but I now believe that is not very reasonable; if it is bad for the government to have a monopoly in any place it is bad in all places, the same principle applies to everything.
Speculators
This subject probably would have been more interesting a few months ago, but I'm running short on Economic topics I haven't already covered, so I'll post about it today.
By speculator I mean the type of entrepreneur who tries to gain by speculating in the future price of something, usually a commodity. Speculators are typically scorned by the media, usually because they make money for 'nothing,' (maybe a not-so-surprising event was all the right-wing talking heads teaming up against the Oil speculators this summer; and I thought they were pro-Capitalism).
However, speculators provide a huge service in the market; since I'm from the mid-west I'll use corn as an example.
Say there is Wisconsin farmer toiling through the spring planting all of his seeds for the corn, all the while worrying about the future price and losing sleep over it. Along comes a speculator who offers him $5 per bushel (not accurate) for all the corn he grows, speculating that it will be higher. The farmer considers it and takes the offer signing a contract in April.
As fall comes closer the price of corn varies widely on speculation that ethanol funding will be stopped or weather will be better than usual, but the farmer does not need to worry about it, because he has a set price, it is also likely the speculator does not because he may have a more diversified portfolio than the farmer could have managed.
Finally, Fall comes and three situations can occur:
- The price is lower than $5 per bushel in which case the farmer has been saved the trouble of selling all his corn at unprofitable prices, while the speculator probably makes up for the loss in other areas.
- The price stays the same and neither party seemingly cares, but the farmer was saved a lot of restless nights knowing he wouldn't have to worry about the price.
- This is the outcome which stirs up the most controversy, the price of corn is higher than $5 per bushel. Many farmers will probably go to the media which will cry about how the speculator 'stole' this profit from the 'poor' farmer (for some reason no one ever talks about the 'poor' speculator who had his money 'stolen' by a farmer when the price ends up lower). Many, unknowledgable and likely unintelligent, will even accuse the speculator of somehow manipulating the prices, as if that were possible. In reality, the Speculator is shouldering all the risk and his profit is easily justified.
"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the the world of fools." ~Herbert Spencer
Short Books, number one Concise Guide to Economics
By definition libertarians are geared more towards work than laziness, because of this not many of them have a lot of time to read a thousand pages per week.
I've decided to start a series, where each week I'll review a great and short (less than 200 pages) book, these will all be on economics, history or politics in some way.
The Concise Guide to Economics
The book is 119 pages, has 37 chapters and was written by Jim Cox, who is an associate professor of economics and political science at Georgia Perimeter College. The book is currently in its third edition.
Cox said in the introduction that his aim with the book is to allow people to grasp free-market economics with very little effort, the book accomplishes this to a great extent.
Though I felt I had a lot of knowledge on all the non-Keynesian stuff (it isn't pro-Keynes, it refutes it), the book showed me arguments I had never though of and cemented my knowledge in many key topics.
Its format also makes it great for future reference, in prepping for the Speculation paragraphs above, I just flipped the book open found the chapter, and read it in two minutes (all the chapters are between 1-4 pages long usually about 2.5, I read the whole book in about two hours).
Finally, Cox includes 5 or more references to longer books on each subject. I consider this book a necessary possession for anyone serious about debating economics maters.
Aquinas is massively enjoying his vacation of reading and non-stop logic relative to the socialist college where he refines his debating skills daily.
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Obama U-Turn
By, TJ Madison
Have you ever seen a bigger '180' in politics, in such a short time?
I'm talking about Barack Hussein's complete makeover after his November 4th election win. Before the presidential election, B. Hussein was all about 'hope and change', 'change and hope'. If he could find another way to say those two words, he would have. He made it sound like we would all be living in paradise, only if he were elected. However, elect the 'other' guy, and America would keep heading down the path of total destruction.
B. Hussein was usually seen with that big smile or a slightly more serious look, when giving one of his 'positive' speeches.
Fast forward six weeks to today. Almost every appearance B. Hussein makes, there's a somber mood and a sour look on his face. Mr. 'hope and change' morphed into Mr. 'fear and hopelessness'. For someone who raised the bar higher than any other politician in recent memory, I've never seen a president lower the bar for himself, before even taking office, as much as he has.
During the campaign, which wasn't that long ago, Hussein was promising immediate good times on January 20th. If he were elected, I was under the impression that we would have 'full' employment, 95% of Americans would get a tax break, and every other nation in the world would 'love' us; thus not needing to pay for a military anymore.
With the money saved, children could go to school immediately after coming out of the womb, everybody would have 100% health care coverage, the government would fill your gas tank up and make your mortgage payment for you.
Guess what? He's still four weeks from talking office, and I think reality is starting to set in.
Or did he already know he wasn't going to be able to do all that crap he talked about, but just decided to say it anyway, as a 'pander' to the ignorant voters who just love to eat up phony promises?
Honestly, I think 85% was his big ego, while the other 15% was promises he knew he couldn't keep.
Democrats have made the same old promises including: middle-class tax cuts, national health care, raising minimum wages and so on. What made it different this time, was that people may have actually thought they were electing 'God' himself. Only because B. Hussein could speak well, and someone this eloquent couldn't possibly be your average scummy politician, could they?
As for the former, Barack probably thought he was the 'Second Coming', the great 'Community Organizer' or the neo-Authoritarian that thought collectivism didn't work because a great man like himself wasn't 'in charge' of it. That's how a political narcissist thinks; socialism could work, if only the 'right' person was running the show.
Have you ever seen a bigger '180' in politics, in such a short time?
I'm talking about Barack Hussein's complete makeover after his November 4th election win. Before the presidential election, B. Hussein was all about 'hope and change', 'change and hope'. If he could find another way to say those two words, he would have. He made it sound like we would all be living in paradise, only if he were elected. However, elect the 'other' guy, and America would keep heading down the path of total destruction.
B. Hussein was usually seen with that big smile or a slightly more serious look, when giving one of his 'positive' speeches.
Fast forward six weeks to today. Almost every appearance B. Hussein makes, there's a somber mood and a sour look on his face. Mr. 'hope and change' morphed into Mr. 'fear and hopelessness'. For someone who raised the bar higher than any other politician in recent memory, I've never seen a president lower the bar for himself, before even taking office, as much as he has.
During the campaign, which wasn't that long ago, Hussein was promising immediate good times on January 20th. If he were elected, I was under the impression that we would have 'full' employment, 95% of Americans would get a tax break, and every other nation in the world would 'love' us; thus not needing to pay for a military anymore.
With the money saved, children could go to school immediately after coming out of the womb, everybody would have 100% health care coverage, the government would fill your gas tank up and make your mortgage payment for you.
Guess what? He's still four weeks from talking office, and I think reality is starting to set in.
Or did he already know he wasn't going to be able to do all that crap he talked about, but just decided to say it anyway, as a 'pander' to the ignorant voters who just love to eat up phony promises?
Honestly, I think 85% was his big ego, while the other 15% was promises he knew he couldn't keep.
Democrats have made the same old promises including: middle-class tax cuts, national health care, raising minimum wages and so on. What made it different this time, was that people may have actually thought they were electing 'God' himself. Only because B. Hussein could speak well, and someone this eloquent couldn't possibly be your average scummy politician, could they?
As for the former, Barack probably thought he was the 'Second Coming', the great 'Community Organizer' or the neo-Authoritarian that thought collectivism didn't work because a great man like himself wasn't 'in charge' of it. That's how a political narcissist thinks; socialism could work, if only the 'right' person was running the show.
America doesn't need another FDR, it needs another Thomas Jefferson.
TJ Madison is a pundit living in Fond du Lac, WI. He works in the health care industry and fights 'creeping socialism' in his spare time.Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Updated Books; Quote; Ayn Rand
Updated Book Store
Just in time for Christmas and the new year I've updated the book store
I've added more sections and consolidated the book titles to only those we endorse.
You can now find great books on, Economics, History, Politics, Philosophy, Religion and Foreign Policy. Plus works of Fiction, Movies and Music.
Free Speech Board
This is the last week of the semester so the question was not updated, but after having a discussion with TJ this weekend, I've decided to comment on the question.
The questions was: "When is civil disobedience OK?"
I originally thought the question was just a HIPPIE thing, but I've come to resent its wording.
The definition of disobedience is: "Lack of obedience or refusal to comply; disregard or transgression," and "civil disobedience," is taken to mean disobeying the government.
My common sense answer to this question is, 100% of the time. This is not including aggression.
My thoughts are this (I know an unusual amount of statement then colon in this section, I'll quit soon): any laws government makes (other than against aggression) are by definition taking away liberty, thus the question should have been: "When are Government Laws OK?"
Quote of the Week
"There is simply no other choice than this: either to abstain from interference in the free play of the market, or to delegate the entire management of production and distribution to the government. Either capitalism or socialism: there exists no middle way."
-Ludwig von Mises
Ayn Rand
I've been putting off writing about Ayn Rand's three main fiction books for a while, I don't have a lot of topics about which to write this week because of the short time in between articles, so I'll write about them now, in the order of my rankings of the three.
Atlas Shrugged
Story
Dagny Taggart is the heroine of the story, she is the Vice President of Taggart Transcontinental Railroad.
She is given the task of making the railroad survive during an economic depression. As she tries to do this a 'destroyer,' is roaming the country convincing all the captains of industry to disappear.
As all the people who run the best companies continue to disappear the economy starts to crash and Taggart struggles to run her company as more and more socialistic government laws are placed on the economy.
My Thoughts
I have not read the Bible in whole, so thus far Atlas Shrugged is my favorite book. There is no close competitor.
Nearly every story in existence preaches the goodness of self sacrifice, Atlas Shrugged shows how self-interest is logical and necessary. As every other book demonizes business and attempts to show government as a protector, Atlas Shrugged shows how the great businessmen are the producers in the economy and the government is the demon.
The book has the easily the best story I have ever read and although it is over 1,200 pages long I could not put it down and read it in just over three days. This book is a must read for literally everyone.
Anthem
Story
Sometime in the future the world has become so collectivized that the word 'I,' no longer even exists in the vocabulary, it has been replaced with 'we.'
In the dystopia created by collectivism all the progresses of the past are lost and the people spend all day working in the jobs chosen for them, many of these farming. There is no electricity and little technology of any sort.
The hero of the book, Equality 7-2521, finds a cave underground where there are remnants of old material, there he rediscovers electricity and creates a primitive light bulb, rejoicing in the fact that he has helped society.
But, when he shows it to the creative council they cast him out, because unless all men have thought of something it is necessarily bad. Equality eventually escapes with a woman he has fallen in love with and lives the rest of his life in the forest next to the city.
My Thoughts
This book is every bit as good as the more popular 1984, and carries more valuable lessons.
It is only 105 pages long and I read it strait through in about an hour and a half, after wards I had a great motivation to work and just create something for about a month.
This book is not as much of a must read, but I'd recommend it for anyone flights or for those with middle to high school aged kids or nephews/nieces etc.
The Fountainhead
Story
Howard Roark is an independent thinking architect, he refuses to go along with the norm.
As a result his life has a lot of ups and downs, but he never compromises on his independence.
In the climax he blows up the living complex he had designed, but was not built ot his specification.
My Thoughts
The Fountainhead is a good book, but I did not like it nearly as much as the first two.
Much of the book was about art, which is a subject I don't find very interesting, combine that with some very dry parts and you get the short summary I wrote above.
I would recommend it for thos einterested in art of just with a lot of reading time and want to read about individuality.
Thomas Aquinas is a college student who takes refuge in great books when his world becomes to inconceivable to make sense.
Just in time for Christmas and the new year I've updated the book store
I've added more sections and consolidated the book titles to only those we endorse.
You can now find great books on, Economics, History, Politics, Philosophy, Religion and Foreign Policy. Plus works of Fiction, Movies and Music.
Free Speech Board
This is the last week of the semester so the question was not updated, but after having a discussion with TJ this weekend, I've decided to comment on the question.
The questions was: "When is civil disobedience OK?"
I originally thought the question was just a HIPPIE thing, but I've come to resent its wording.
The definition of disobedience is: "Lack of obedience or refusal to comply; disregard or transgression," and "civil disobedience," is taken to mean disobeying the government.
My common sense answer to this question is, 100% of the time. This is not including aggression.
My thoughts are this (I know an unusual amount of statement then colon in this section, I'll quit soon): any laws government makes (other than against aggression) are by definition taking away liberty, thus the question should have been: "When are Government Laws OK?"
Quote of the Week
"There is simply no other choice than this: either to abstain from interference in the free play of the market, or to delegate the entire management of production and distribution to the government. Either capitalism or socialism: there exists no middle way."
-Ludwig von Mises
Ayn Rand
I've been putting off writing about Ayn Rand's three main fiction books for a while, I don't have a lot of topics about which to write this week because of the short time in between articles, so I'll write about them now, in the order of my rankings of the three.
Atlas Shrugged
Story
Dagny Taggart is the heroine of the story, she is the Vice President of Taggart Transcontinental Railroad.
She is given the task of making the railroad survive during an economic depression. As she tries to do this a 'destroyer,' is roaming the country convincing all the captains of industry to disappear.
As all the people who run the best companies continue to disappear the economy starts to crash and Taggart struggles to run her company as more and more socialistic government laws are placed on the economy.
My Thoughts
I have not read the Bible in whole, so thus far Atlas Shrugged is my favorite book. There is no close competitor.
Nearly every story in existence preaches the goodness of self sacrifice, Atlas Shrugged shows how self-interest is logical and necessary. As every other book demonizes business and attempts to show government as a protector, Atlas Shrugged shows how the great businessmen are the producers in the economy and the government is the demon.
The book has the easily the best story I have ever read and although it is over 1,200 pages long I could not put it down and read it in just over three days. This book is a must read for literally everyone.
Anthem
Story
Sometime in the future the world has become so collectivized that the word 'I,' no longer even exists in the vocabulary, it has been replaced with 'we.'
In the dystopia created by collectivism all the progresses of the past are lost and the people spend all day working in the jobs chosen for them, many of these farming. There is no electricity and little technology of any sort.
The hero of the book, Equality 7-2521, finds a cave underground where there are remnants of old material, there he rediscovers electricity and creates a primitive light bulb, rejoicing in the fact that he has helped society.
But, when he shows it to the creative council they cast him out, because unless all men have thought of something it is necessarily bad. Equality eventually escapes with a woman he has fallen in love with and lives the rest of his life in the forest next to the city.
My Thoughts
This book is every bit as good as the more popular 1984, and carries more valuable lessons.
It is only 105 pages long and I read it strait through in about an hour and a half, after wards I had a great motivation to work and just create something for about a month.
This book is not as much of a must read, but I'd recommend it for anyone flights or for those with middle to high school aged kids or nephews/nieces etc.
The Fountainhead
Story
Howard Roark is an independent thinking architect, he refuses to go along with the norm.
As a result his life has a lot of ups and downs, but he never compromises on his independence.
In the climax he blows up the living complex he had designed, but was not built ot his specification.
My Thoughts
The Fountainhead is a good book, but I did not like it nearly as much as the first two.
Much of the book was about art, which is a subject I don't find very interesting, combine that with some very dry parts and you get the short summary I wrote above.
I would recommend it for thos einterested in art of just with a lot of reading time and want to read about individuality.
Thomas Aquinas is a college student who takes refuge in great books when his world becomes to inconceivable to make sense.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
'Hostile Takeover'; Bailout again; Christmas; Russ Roberts
I missed last week's post as I temporarily became obsessed with a four book series, and I read 2,700 pages in about seven days. I literally could not put down the books if I wasn't sleeping, working or going to class. So this week my post will be a little longer than usual.
A Hostile takeover is not a logical or intelligent name
First, Investopedia calls a Hostile Takeover:
Also, it is so far impossible to force people to sell their shares of a company, so a takeover is, by definition, never hostile to the owners. If it was they would not choose to sell their shares.
So, combining those two points, if owners choose to sell their shares when the management of the company is resisting the buyout, the management is either crappy, or the bid is high enough to make it worth the shareholders while, regardless of which applies it is better for the owner's of the company, that is, those who really matter.
Free Speech Board
This week's question was, "When is Civil Disobedience OK," I do not really have an opinion on this so I didn't read any of the answers.
Stop the Bailouts, Part 1
In a free market the only gauge entrepreneurs have as to whether consumers like a product and want scarce resources to be devoted to its production is Profit/Loss.
When a company has a profit it means consumers are willing to pay for the allocation of that resource, when it has a loss it means they don't.
Without this ability there is no way to see where people really want and need resources, when the government overrides prices and props up a losing company resources get allocated incorrectly (the USSR famously had too much machinery and not enough working factories in one part of its country, and too many factories with no machinery in another part).
Quote of the Week
With two weeks left before Christmas I've decided to add a little recommendation section for some last minute Christmas presents that can be bought from Amazon. Also, we get a 5% commission on everything purchased that will go towards the hosting costs.
History
The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History
- The first book I read by a libertarian author, Thomas E. Woods massacres any and all of the myths about big government in American History.
Hamilton's Curse
- I haven't read this book, but I did read DiLorenzo's How Capitalism Saved America, which was very good, and haven't read a negative review on it yet.
Economics
Economics in One Lesson
- Hazlitt takes on all of the economic stupidity of his day (the fifties) and shows how using one basic rule (look past step one) all of them can be derailed, most of them still apply today and I believe this is one of if not the best introductory Economics books.
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism
- This was the book that started me down the slope into libertarianism. As Woods did in his 'PIG' Robert Murphy destroys all the big government myths about Economics, and on the way recommends countless worthy books and uses only concrete logic.
Fiction
The Invisible Heart: An Economic Romance - See Russ Roberts books below.
Twilight (The Twilight Saga, Book 1)
- This books series was one that killed my free time last week. There is little to no politics in the book, but for those who like good stories combined with romance I haven't read anything that can beat it. Also, it's only $6 on Amazon so if you buy it and don't like it's not a big deal.
Stop the Bailouts, Part 2
Many people say GM needs to be bailed out because it employs so many people, but as Briggs Armstrong pointed out 12 companies have more employees than GM and Wal-Mart has seven times as many.
Do we have to bail all of these companies out as well?
Can you name one liberal who would want to bail out non-union Wal-Mart instead of GM?
Russ Roberts Books
I read these books a while ago, but had to do a report on one for one of my classes so I've waited until now to post on them.
The Price of Everything: A Parable of Possibility and Prosperity
This is Roberts' most recent book, it tells the story of a college student who plans a protest against a big Corporation who doubled its prices in the aftermath of an airplane and the professor who talked him out of protesting in his graduation speech.
The Invisible Heart
My favorite of his books, it's about two teachers, one Economics and one English. The English is decidedly leftist and the Economics courts her with political debates.
The Choice: A Fable of Free Trade and Protection (3rd Edition)
The Choice is not as good as the other two, it centers around 18th century British Economist David Ricardo visiting a business owner who is lobbying for protectionist legislation and showing how protectionism does not work.
Stop the Bailout, Part 3
The bailout is socialism, this has no legitimate argument against it.
One need only look at Russia, China, Cuba, North Korea, Chicago, etc. to see how badly socialism has failed, and the lives it has taken.
THERE HAS BEEN PURE SOCIALISM
Many unintelligent defenders of socialism (which is very redundant, I know) claim there is no way to know if pure socialism would actually work because it has never existed totally without a leader screwing it up.
This is untrue, from 1917 to 1921 it existed in this form in the USSR, after just this little time the death rate from starvation (in a country where its previous problem had been how to dispose of its food surplus) that Lenin was forced to introduce prices until 1927, when he took back control with socialism.
Thomas Aquinas is the aka for a college student living in Salt Lake City, Utah. He deals with the economic incompetence of his fellows by reading constantly, and recommends that to others who have to deal with idiocy.
A Hostile takeover is not a logical or intelligent name
First, Investopedia calls a Hostile Takeover:
A takeover attempt that is strongly resisted by the target firm.Alright, I'm going to assume they mean management by the 'target firm.'
Also, it is so far impossible to force people to sell their shares of a company, so a takeover is, by definition, never hostile to the owners. If it was they would not choose to sell their shares.
So, combining those two points, if owners choose to sell their shares when the management of the company is resisting the buyout, the management is either crappy, or the bid is high enough to make it worth the shareholders while, regardless of which applies it is better for the owner's of the company, that is, those who really matter.
Free Speech Board
This week's question was, "When is Civil Disobedience OK," I do not really have an opinion on this so I didn't read any of the answers.
Stop the Bailouts, Part 1
In a free market the only gauge entrepreneurs have as to whether consumers like a product and want scarce resources to be devoted to its production is Profit/Loss.
When a company has a profit it means consumers are willing to pay for the allocation of that resource, when it has a loss it means they don't.
Without this ability there is no way to see where people really want and need resources, when the government overrides prices and props up a losing company resources get allocated incorrectly (the USSR famously had too much machinery and not enough working factories in one part of its country, and too many factories with no machinery in another part).
Quote of the Week
Christmas Presents"Democracy is a form of worship. It is the worship of jackals by jackasses."-H.L. Mencken
With two weeks left before Christmas I've decided to add a little recommendation section for some last minute Christmas presents that can be bought from Amazon. Also, we get a 5% commission on everything purchased that will go towards the hosting costs.
History
The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History
- The first book I read by a libertarian author, Thomas E. Woods massacres any and all of the myths about big government in American History.Hamilton's Curse
- I haven't read this book, but I did read DiLorenzo's How Capitalism Saved America, which was very good, and haven't read a negative review on it yet.Economics
Economics in One Lesson
- Hazlitt takes on all of the economic stupidity of his day (the fifties) and shows how using one basic rule (look past step one) all of them can be derailed, most of them still apply today and I believe this is one of if not the best introductory Economics books.The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism
- This was the book that started me down the slope into libertarianism. As Woods did in his 'PIG' Robert Murphy destroys all the big government myths about Economics, and on the way recommends countless worthy books and uses only concrete logic.Fiction
The Invisible Heart: An Economic Romance - See Russ Roberts books below.
Twilight (The Twilight Saga, Book 1)
- This books series was one that killed my free time last week. There is little to no politics in the book, but for those who like good stories combined with romance I haven't read anything that can beat it. Also, it's only $6 on Amazon so if you buy it and don't like it's not a big deal.Stop the Bailouts, Part 2
Many people say GM needs to be bailed out because it employs so many people, but as Briggs Armstrong pointed out 12 companies have more employees than GM and Wal-Mart has seven times as many.
Do we have to bail all of these companies out as well?
Can you name one liberal who would want to bail out non-union Wal-Mart instead of GM?
Russ Roberts Books
I read these books a while ago, but had to do a report on one for one of my classes so I've waited until now to post on them.
The Price of Everything: A Parable of Possibility and Prosperity
This is Roberts' most recent book, it tells the story of a college student who plans a protest against a big Corporation who doubled its prices in the aftermath of an airplane and the professor who talked him out of protesting in his graduation speech.
The Invisible Heart
My favorite of his books, it's about two teachers, one Economics and one English. The English is decidedly leftist and the Economics courts her with political debates.
The Choice: A Fable of Free Trade and Protection (3rd Edition)
The Choice is not as good as the other two, it centers around 18th century British Economist David Ricardo visiting a business owner who is lobbying for protectionist legislation and showing how protectionism does not work.
Stop the Bailout, Part 3
The bailout is socialism, this has no legitimate argument against it.
One need only look at Russia, China, Cuba, North Korea, Chicago, etc. to see how badly socialism has failed, and the lives it has taken.
THERE HAS BEEN PURE SOCIALISM
Many unintelligent defenders of socialism (which is very redundant, I know) claim there is no way to know if pure socialism would actually work because it has never existed totally without a leader screwing it up.
This is untrue, from 1917 to 1921 it existed in this form in the USSR, after just this little time the death rate from starvation (in a country where its previous problem had been how to dispose of its food surplus) that Lenin was forced to introduce prices until 1927, when he took back control with socialism.
Thomas Aquinas is the aka for a college student living in Salt Lake City, Utah. He deals with the economic incompetence of his fellows by reading constantly, and recommends that to others who have to deal with idiocy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
