Wisdom comes alone through suffering.
Aeschylus
Pro-Liberty Thought of the Day
Reflecting on the Day That Will Live in Infamy
This blog is not a fan of FDR, and not just from his bait-and-switch 1932 election, his failed centralized economic planning program, his unconscionable attempt to pack the Supreme Court, and the unprecedented third (and fourth) election, putting his political ambitions above the country's interests. I have known bits and pieces of the "real story" (vs. the story most of us were taught in school, how the Japanese launched an unprovoked, surprise attack on Pearl Harbor). Let me make very clear nothing I write here justifies what the Japanese did at Pearl Harbor. I'm paraphrasing information from some prior posts by Higgs here and here and/or Geary here.
What we know is that FDR did not share the general public's reluctance to get involved in another European or wider war, particularly given an earlier bloody "war to end all wars" scarcely a generation earlier. It seems as almost FDR was looking for an excuse to rationalize intervention. It provided intelligence, e.g., on German U-boats, which were given orders to refrain from attacking American ships. Unable to goad Hitler into an attack, FDR shrewdly calculated to provoke an attack from the Japanese, figuring that Germany would have to declare war on the US given its alliance with Japan. Japan has few natural resources and heavily depended on imports to sustain its industrial economy. Japan had no appetite for war with the US, a key trading partner, highly industrious with abundant natural resources. The US and Britain (both with Asian territories) colluded on a series of economic sanctions against Japan, arguably economic acts of war. Japan made several attempts to negotiate with Washington, to no avail. At some point, the Americans had cracked Japanese code and learned that the Japanese were considering an attack on Pearl Harbor if negotiations failed.
In fact, FDR had acted to reinstate a peacetime military draft in Sept. 1940, an admiral warned FDR soon afterward against a large Navy presence at Pearl Harbor, which FDR rebuffed as a deterrent to the Japanese, and newspapers reported on prospective war plans literally days before Pearl Harbor. None of the intelligence of a possible Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was shared with military commanders there. FDR finally had the pretext he needed for entering the war.
Facebook Corner
(Learn Liberty). A lot of people are unhappy with the Affordable Care Act. If you could make a recommendation to the White House and Congress on the best way to pursue health care policy in the U.S., what would you tell them?
(1) Repeal tax expenditures for employer-supplied healthcare; (2) Repeal, decentralize (or, preferably privatize) ObamaCare, Medicaid and Medicare; (3) Introduce interstate reforms, allowing any state-regulated insurers to market in other states and/or multi-state groups to self-insure like major corporations; (4) Guarantee needs-based catastrophic coverage, funded by a health sector VAT.
(Responding to a "progressive" troll, effectively arguing that without ObamaCare, preexisting conditions wouldn't be handled and arguing a Wild West of junk plans): You could handle catastrophic costs by, say, shoring up and/or creating regional high risk pools, funded by a health sector consumption tax; this same "progressive" troll is peddling propaganda; there are state regulators of health insurance; the best way to address so-called "junk plans" is through transparency, improve consumer access to state regulators, Consumer Reports-type independent validation--not by parasitic federal bureaucrats.
(Libertarianism.org) Can we argue for a guaranteed basic income within libertarian principles? Matt Zwolinski offered a case. But David Friedman says his arguments don’t work.
Matt Zwolinski doesn't sound much like a libertarian to me.
Actually Zwolinski contributes to the Bleeding Heart Libertarian blog and is pretty good on most issues. He has published a number of good videos at Learn Liberty on Youtube. He understands that government policies are often ineffective; he is more interested in moral theory and, for example, argues that we shouldn't confuse the means with the ends of social justice.
Milton Friedman also supported a minimum income instead of government programs for two simple reasons. First, the bureaucracy is minimal, and second, poor people would be allowed to make their own economic choices, instead of having then made for them.
You do realize David is Milton's son? Milton had a more pragmatic side; he also favored school vouchers. There is no doubt these are better alternatives to the status quo (for example, we can cut out the parasitic bureaucracy) but it is still intervention in the economy and morally hazardous policy.
What should themin wage be if not a living wage? Half of a living wage, guaranteeing spouses never see eachother or forcing them to have daycare raise their children. For ing single parents to work two jobs and not see their children at all? Three quarters of a living wage, allowing for survival but never rising above without sacrificing family time? We want our children raised with family values but in no way want to support a model that allows for success both financially and in the home. I suppose we could say these ppl should not have children then? Policing reproduction on financial qualifications? How does that fit the small gov more freedom model? We need to hold employers accountable for social responsibility and integrity. In a perfect world a sense if humanity would accomplish this, but there are too many laws protecting investors bottom line to allow for natural care of employees. Their are many solutions, each of them involving some sort of mandate on companies, but with such rampant greed and such a large disconnect we simply can not trust employers to feel responsible for their employees.
No, this is the typical "progressive" rationalization for legal plunder. You cannot force a business to pay more than a worker contributes to business objectives. A business simply won't hire; and you won't help the people whom don't have the skills and experience to attract work at higher wages. At lower wages, workers still get experience which can improve productivity and result in higher wages; he or she can try to improve their market value by going to school/training, volunteering for new work responsibilities, etc. But it is economic illiteracy for government to arbitrarily raise wage floors; it lowers the incentive to create starter jobs. Businesses often operate on thin margins; it is not that role of business to operate in a political manner, e.g., decide what is a "fair" wage. It can only grow by offering goods and services at attractive prices. If costs exceed revenues, the business is no longer viable. What you have to ask yourself is whether you can morally justify pulling an arbitrary number out of your ass that deprives low-skilled/young workers an opportunity to gain income and job experience; I think minimum/living wage proponents are morally bankrupt. The first law of economists is to do no harm, and wage floors are a prohibition of job seekers to work at an agreed-upon lower price.
(We the Individuals). To hell with your property rights, we want our hate filled cake.
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_24672077/judge-orders-colo-cake-maker-serve-gay-couples
This seems to be a copycat of what recently happened in New Mexico. What the judge ruled is unconstitutional: it's a form of slavery for the State; it subordinates the rule of law to political correctness. This had everything to do with legal harassment of people not agreeing with them. Personally, I'm not in business to turn away profitable transactions (they could always use profits from the sale to picket said wedding...) But let's face it: the spurned cake buyers were looking for publicity, and the judge played his part.
(We the Individuals). Is there a "civil war within the GOP"? Will the "old GOP" come out on top? Is the new and old GOP the same? What are your thoughts?
I think the fact that the Iraq intervention, massive deficits, and the economic tsunami occurred on Bush's watch has permanently changed the GOP. I think in 2016, the successful GOP nominee will call for a change from Clinton/Bush/Obama. My guess is there will be a more pro-liberty tone but a more pragmatic approach contrasting against Obama rather than the recent Christie-Paul kerfuffle. I would prefer Rand Paul or Paul Ryan, but I suspect the GOP has a deep bench of governors, and GOP voters will want someone whom they think can win the purple states. The fact that the Tea Party has been scapegoated makes it unlikely Rand Paul will win: the GOP wants the election to be over Obama's sorry record, not the Tea Party.
(Reason Magazine). What would happen if authors and publishers could not count on copyright to protect them from piracy?
(Responding to a discussant claiming those supporting intellectual property is anti-libertarian):
No, a plunderer conveniently defining away intellectual property and exploiting someone else's work is anti-libertarian. Dismissing the personal contributions of others is not only the rationalization of a thief but pathetic and morally bankrupt. I have no doubt you copied your rant from another disingenuous thief....
 |
| Via Learn Liberty |
Tom DiLorenzo's "How Capitalism Saved America"
(Bastiat Institute). Can you be pro-life and also be pro "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran"?http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/06/you-cant-be-pro-life-and-want-to-nuke-iran/
I think the reverse scenario holds for hypocrisy: pacifists who look the other way as preborn children are killed on demand or how our President, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, approves kill lists for drones.
What I also can't understand is why after the nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan, we are obsessed with a nation a tenth of our size and no strategic threat.
You cannot shield the civilian population from the effects of a nuclear attack; I still regret the bombs dropped on Japan in WWII. I'm not sure that a pro-lifer needs to be a pacifist (take, for instance, a chance to stop the Nazi war crimes against humanity), but I think talking about an offensive attack against a country that poses no existential threat to the US is irresponsible and makes us potentially morally responsible for the unacceptable deaths of innocent Iranian civilians.
We need to tone down the strident rhetoric, stop meddling in the affairs of other nations, and engage in the win-win proposition of international trade. Trading partners generally don't want to kill their customers.
(The Libertarian Republic). Court Demand Man Pay $50K For Breaking Promise To Marry Woman | The Libertarian Republic http://bit.ly/1aIZMz6
A libertarian upholds a contract; having a child with a woman and giving her a $10K engagement ring are evidence of that commitment. However, and I'm not a lawyer, I don't know how he was in breach of contract unless there was a documented specified length of time to get married. In fact, she asked him to move out. Personally, I think she's better off without an unfaithful fiance.
(Bastiat Institute). On Friday, the high court agreed to hear an appeal of a case that has tied lower courts in knots. A May ruling in the case from a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., yielded seven opinions, totaling more than 120 pages, and no clear answer to whether – and when – computer code should get patent protection. http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2013/12/06/supreme-court-to-weigh-whether-software-is-patentable/?blog_id=14&post_id=46556&mod=wsj_valettop_email
code is nothing more than a complex algorithm... and mathematics is not patented, so why the hell...?
That is as idiotic as saying that a literary masterpiece is nothing more than words...
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Dave Granlund via Illinois Policy Institute |
Jim Brickman (featuring Marc Devigne), "Minuit Chrétien (O Holy Night)". I stumbled upon this version while on Youtube recently; I've featured other artists on the original French version in past seasons. It was not my intention to select two consecutive Brickman selections, but his piano playing is a beautiful interpretation. I believe the featured vocalist was a semi-finalist on the inaugural Canadian Idol competition. Céline Dion does a sparkling English version of the song, but if she's covered the song in her native tongue, I'm not aware of it--there are other performers whom perform alternate verses in English and French. For some arcane reason, Céline's French material sometimes has not been available to American Youtube users, although I've been able to listen to selections from other French-speaking performers. If Céline does cover a French version available to me, I'll embed it.
Familiar readers may remember my fondness for the French version. (As a Franco-American, French was in fact my first language, but I was not as fluent in English when I started kindergarten, and my folks responded to the public school's concern by speaking only English in front of their kids. To this day, my siblings blame me for the fact they aren't fluent in French.) My relationship to this song in particular dates back to when I took French class at a South Carolina junior high. We had a performance project of Le Jongleur de Notre Dame, and at a key point in the performance, we sang "Minuit Chrétien"--and it has remained a personal favorite to the present.
Bonus Selections (From an Air Force Brat)
