Hating people is like
burning down your own house
to get rid of a rat.
Harry Emerson Fosdick
Pro-Liberty Thought of the Day
 |
| Via Drudge Report |
 |
| Via Libertarian Republic |
Image of the Day
 |
| Via We the Individuals |
SCOTUS: Coming Attractions
I'm not a fearless predictor of judicial decisions; for example, I would never have predicted that Chief Justice Roberts would have ruled in favor of ObamaCare as an exercising of the State's taxing authority. However, given the context of recent decisions affirming the right of political speech, I would be surprised if SCOTUS didn't strike down Ohio's censorship of the pro-life Susan B. Anthony list. Similarly, I would be surprised if SCOTUS allowed warrantless searches of cellphones. I'm less certain about the Aereo case. I would prefer a ruling for Aereo because, as it argues, it is simply an extension of traditional "free" broadcasting. The national broadcasting companies now share in cable revenues, in addition to commercial sponsor revenues. In essence, the cable companies/networks are arguing equal protection.
Facebook Corner
(Independent Institute). Research Fellow Wendy McElroy: "What motivated the Democratic Senators to protest the non-action of a body they control on an issue for which they proposed no remedy? Follow the money. "
The only true way to eliminate corruption is to limit the size and scope of government.
 |
| Via We the Individuals |
(Ron Paul). Condemning a False Enemy Through Protective Tariffs. Ron cites yet another example of the dangers of NAFTA and NTO allowing American businesses protective tariffs against foreign trade. This case involves Mexican steel companies and the American rebar industry. http://bit.ly/1suWqv7
I've generally supported NAFTA, as the fellow free-market icon Milton Friedman did, as better than nothing. But, like Friedman, I would embrace unilateral free trade. You don't become globally competitive by artificial barriers to competition. It is a corrupt bargain, a form of corporate and unionist welfare, pure and simple.
But, and I think I appreciate it after an anti-NAFTA troll attacked me on Tom Woods website, NAFTA was an oxymoron--de facto, it's a variation of mercantilism, with layers of tariffs, as Ron Paul points out here. (I do think overall it's still a success because it has increased trade across the continent, improved supply chain integration and provided more consumer-friendly prices in many goods and services--but it could be a lot better if we eliminated tariffs across the board, ditched the anti-competitive side agreements, etc.) There is a history of American abuses of NAFTA, such as past illegal restrictions against Mexican truckers. We cannot allow the Clintontrade of NAFTA morph into the Obamatrade of TPP. Any new trade pact must pass what I call the Bastiat criterion--the consumer must benefit from variety and competition of goods and services.
...
Protectionist CRAP in this thread... Any attempt to stipulate conditions to commerce is aggression and legalized plunder against the consumer.
...
No, NAFTA was a glass half-full; there is no doubt we consumers are better off, and that's win-win, despite the economic illiterate labor protectionists in this thread. What Ron Paul is correct is in pointing out that much of NAFTA smacks of managed trade; you don't need a convoluted treaty to institute free trade; you simply let it happen. This is the same bullshit that Obama is trying to do with TPP.
(Economic Freedom). What would we do without government protecting us from the dangers of an unlicensed tour guide?
Very poor choice in using an interior designer as an example of professions that shouldn't be licensed. While interior decorators are charged with picking out colors and patterns, the work of a designer heavily overlaps that of an architect. Interior designers produce HVAC, electrical, switching and plumbing plans while ensuring that the interior structure meets all building and ADA codes. Licensing that particular industry is extremely necessary to guarantee public safety. This licensing requires a 4-year degree, professional experience and examination.
I think we are dealing with a state-protected interior designer cartel that doesn't like competing against "less-qualified" interior designers. It's the consumer whom should have the option of deciding whether the extra qualifications warrant premium pricing or are necessary,
(National Review). The left-wingers are getting restive.
When is the GOP going to get the message, the issue isn't with the Tea Party (which I'm proud to support, along with brilliant legislators like Rand Paul and Justin Amash). but with the lack of a comprehensive, alternative vision to the "progressive" Dems failed interventionist domestic and foreign policies. We need in essence a reinvigorated, positive vision of the pro-liberty, pro-market, non-interventionist Old Right, which rejects radioactive, counterproductive policies on immigration, more of a focus on economic growth, which lifts all boats, and the principle of Subsidiarity, a positive campaign which rejects the failed domestic and foreign policies over the past 20 years, the Ponzi scheme entitlements running square into the face of the Baby Boomer Retirement Tsunami, activist monetary policy that punishes savers and encourages malinvestment and speculative economic bubbles.
(We the Individuals). Let me guess, it isn't a minimum wage thing, it's a "greed" thing.
Not to mention other natural interfaces, like powerful voice recognition technology, e.g., Nuance and other vendors. This is simply a logical extention of a technology wave that has been going on for years: ATM's, stock market transactions, voice mail, self-checkout lanes, iRobot Roombas, etc. Technology, of course, improves productivity over time. You have a new value-added employment, e.g., maintenance of programmed/robotic devices, etc., while freeing up workers from punching icon keys at the cash register. Economically illiterate wage controls, of course, lower the breakeven point of adopting innovative labor-saving technologies.
(Libertarianism.org) Bryan Caplan's research shows that voters consistently and confidently embrace a long list of popular misconceptions about voting—and thus, are irrational.
Let's start with reminding everyone that we are a REPUBLIC not a democracy......
This comes from Google Dictionary: "a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives." But Caplan's points remain the same whether we vote directly or through a proxy.
Voting??? the crooks in Gov are controlling that!!
By what? Guarding against fraud, which means manipulation of the government by corrupt special interests?
A republic!?!? We are an oligarchy
Stop already with the crackpot conspiracy theories...
(Tom Woods). We live under the rule of law, not of men, right? Or we would, if only we could replace the current bad guys with good guys. Wrong again. Have your mind blown with this episode of the Tom Woods Show.
Well, the thesis about the rule of law being a myth is hardly new. In a country where politicians make a career out of telling other people what to do and/or empowering unaccountable bureaucrats to do the same (ObamaCare being a glaring Exhibit 1), almost everyone would fail a "white glove" test. Police officers have discretion whether to make an arrest; prosecutors have discretion whether to file charges--and can use that to intimidate an innocent party into pleading guilty to a lesser charge. All of this defies the concept of the rule of law vs. the rule of man. Certain this is true of the current Administration which decides to pick and choose which laws to enforce as a matter of policy (vs. reforming the law) and which supports warrantless searches and illegal wars (without Congressional authorization).
How to restore a more limited government is the rub. I expect that it will require a government crisis, say, the Big Government cost bubble bursting.
But, but, Romans 13!!!!
"Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.
6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: if you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honour, then honour."
First, note that Jesus Himself rejected a political mandate, and when He was asked whether to pay taxes (Luke 20:25), He did not give a direct answer "yes" but discerned between one's obligation to the State and one's obligation to God, the latter being higher. It's disingenuous to argue that Paul was endorsing the Roman government which executed Christ or imprisoned multiple apostles and said, Egypt and Babylon which had enslaved the Israelites were acting according to God's will.
Second, I think Paul is simply speaking in a symbolic sense here. He knows that Nero and others were killing people, an abomination, and engaging in other heinous acts, contradicting God's commandments; Nero did not have a divine mandate to contradict Jesus' teachings. In my view, Paul was in essence reinforcing Jesus' clever response to the Pharisees' trap in raising the tax question. Paul wanted Christians to focus on living Christ's teachings, don't get fixated on pedestrian politics. If you are persecuted for following Christ's teachings, it's one thing, but don't get prosecuted for doing the wrong thing.
(Drudge Report). POPE: 'LEGITIMATE REDISTRIBUTION' OF WEALTH...
As a Catholic libertarian, I wholly reject this pope's flawed misunderstanding of basic business and economics. Market systems have brought more people out of poverty into a rising standard of living. Government is part of the problem, not the solution; Jesus Himself rejected a political mandate, and the last thing the Church should be doing is endorsing legalized plunder, which by any historical understanding is at most a short-term fix and impedes the proper functionality of the markets. Generally speaking, economic interventions have failed, exacerbating shortages of consumer goods and services and promoting morally hazardous policies which stunt moral and spiritual development. It's bad enough that the Pope plagiarizes left-wing propaganda and has nothing new to bring into the discussion; he has zero understanding how his vacuous demagoguery actually makes things worse for poor people: the government takes its cut before any of the wealth trickles down in a misallocated fashion. He should be championing liberalized economies and trade. For example, by some estimates, 20 years after NAFTA, the cost of many basic staples had been halved for ordinary Mexican citizens. On the other hand, megalomaniac attempts to produce ethanol as an additive to gasoline actually resulted in higher corn prices, a staple of the Mexican diet.
(IPI). Over the past decade, Illinois added 100 people to food stamps for every job it created. One in six Illinoisans rely on food stamps; accessed by a Link card and paid for with taxpayer dollars. Right now, almost 2 million people in the Land of Lincoln are enrolled in the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP.
It surprises me IPI seems to be implicitly advocating drug testing for food stamp recipients. (I personally oppose the food stamp program as morally hazardous and contrary to the principle of Subsidiarity.) However, it is the conceptual equivalent of a warrantless search, and Florida's similar welfare stipulation was struck down as unconstitutional and an appeals court upheld the ruling. But even if that wasn't compelling enough, the program costs more to administer than it saves, with only a negligible percentage (2%) detected in the Florida case.
(Reason). City Council Interested in Power to Arrest 5-Year-Olds for Serial Bullying
Who's going to protect kids from the Big Blue bullies?
(Drudge Report). Pentagon will spend $20 BILLION for new presidential helicopters...
So are our grandchildren going to pay them off with Yellen dollars?
(Lew Rockwell). Writes John Seiler: Here’s how I interpret Pope Francis’s call for the redistribution of wealth: U.S. federal government workers are rich, making twice what the poor middle-class makes in the private sector. So, cut the rich government workers’ salaries in half, “redistributing” the money back to poor middle-class taxpayers by cutting their federal taxes in half — thus allowing them to survive, instead of squirming in poverty.
Rockwell is allegedly a Catholic, but this thread is full of offensive anti-Catholic propaganda and bigotry....
This does not mean I will defend his incompetent characterization of the free market and capitalism or his undue confidence in the State and political vocation. Capitalism has raised more people out of poverty than all other efforts put together; for example, we have seen a large middle class emerge in China and India, huge rises in the standard of living across the world.
I have an alternative take to Seiler: I call it "trickle down" government assistance--whatever is left after the well-paid bureaucracy takes its cut and misallocates in contradiction to the principle of Subsidiarity.
Lotta wealth in the Vatican - maybe the Pope would like to share some of that ?
I'm personally fed up with anti-Catholic bigotry, spreading grotesque exaggerations. In fact, the bulk of assets are in museum type items which even if liquidated to private collectors would barely dent poverty; it operates at a fraction of Harvard University's billion dollar-plus annual budget. In fact, the Church and Catholic Charities constitute the US' biggest private sector social service provider, only behind the US government. You are entitled to your crackpot conspiracy ideas, but you have no integrity.
(Ron Paul). The Cost of Regulation Regulations in the U.S. are onerous. And yet, Americans don’t talk about regulations enough. Ron discusses how regulations are a tangled web of bureaucracy that cost nearly $2 trillion. http://bit.ly/1qmJ7PB
I understand that overly regulating things can become a problem due to bureaucracy. However, there is absolutely not way I would let any corporation or body of corporations self regulate! Anyone who thinks that these "entities" (guess what, they're NOT) will not sell out the future for quick profit is criminally naive.
If corporate self regulation is really what you want, when I get my environmentally and socially destructive company going full swing (Diamond mining, LNG fracking, sweat shop tailoring, factory meat production...you choose), I'll make sure to dump all of the untreated effluence (both environmental and human) into your back yard. Oh, and It'll be OK because my company, and the other companies like mine say it's OK, because, you know, we've self regulated ourselves. What happens 10 years from now doesn't matter to me because by that point I'll have retired with a $500,000,000 retirement package plus stock options and my own private island. Oh, and if you try to do the same thing to me, I'll wipe you out physically with my own private "security firm" (read: personal army) and legally with my army of lawyers.
Idiot troll... The only real winners of regulation are the bureaucratic rent-seekers. Businesses not only are liable for damage to the lives and properties of others, but they also risk the loss of reputation which could be exploited by more ethical competitors.
Joe Biden: "It was just my first attempt to parallel park the Presidential limo."
Traditional Marriage
Heroes
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Gary Varvel and Townhall |
 |
| Courtesy of the original artist via Bastiat Institute |
Barry Manilow, "The Old Songs"
And Now for Guest Boogie
