As we let our own light shine,
we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same.
As we are liberated from our own fear,
our presence automatically liberates others.
Nelson Mandela
Pro-Liberty Thought of the Day
 |
| via Illinois Policy Institute |
Not Capra's Version: "It's a Wonderful Life (Without Capitalism)"
Facebook Corner
(We the Individuals). If you could go back in time to where you were economically/philosophically/ideologically 10 years ago, what advice would you give or what would you tell yourself of the future?
(1) return to Texas, change my career and/or return to academia; (2) become more vocal about budget, entitlement, GSE and Fed reform and cautious about nation-building; (3) be more prudent in spending, saving, and investing
(Catholic libertarians.) In light of the recent news out of Utah and my home state of New Mexico, here's a bit I typed up earlier this year. ~Mark. I'm not going to copy and paste his long, rambling opinion, which among other things includes a political attack against the allegedly hypocritical GOP (and Newt Gingrich in particular). He seems to buy into the argument that objecting to legal recognition of nontraditional marriages is a kind of prohibition against nontraditional relationships. I think that's nonsense--just to give a simple example, I would tolerate another person's advocacy of Hitler's belief system; that's quite different from providing him a public forum to espouse his nonsense. Although I disagree with the idiocy of recreational drugs, I think prohibition is bad public policy. But the "gay marriage" kerfuffle isn't about the prohibition of gay relationships.
Give me a break! The libertarian case is to protect negative liberties--that is, the government or other groups cannot impede my freely choosing my relationships. Marriage laws, based on thousands of years of social conventions/norms, are not arbitrary decisions, like mix or matching pairs of socks. There's a difference between tolerating nontraditional relationships and demanding a special social/legal status, which is more of a "positive right". We do accept some social norms/preferences decided by a majority (clothing in public, decorum at public events, etc.) That's different from a majority imposing restrictions in our homes. If a majority in a community (say, a US state) want to confer special privileges on nontraditional relationships (say, "gay marriage" or plural marriages), I would prefer to retain traditional relationships for, among other things, unintended consequences of screwing with the evolved constructs of marriage, designed to sustain (through procreation) and stabilize society. We have to recall that homosexuality and plural relationships co-existed at the start of the Judaic-Christian tradition and were not accepted. Christ was unambiguous about marriage, divorce, adultery, etc. As I pointed out in other groups, the status of plural marriages was a big issue in the territory of Utah and when it was admitted to the Union. A bigamy law was passed during the Lincoln Administration and unanimously upheld by the Supreme Court. What the Utah decision did was decriminalize plural living arrangements, not recognize plural marriages--which is what the plaintiffs sought. As a libertarian, I accept that ruling as consistent with the concept of negative liberties; as a Catholic, I do not accept/support the concept of plural households, including conferring any special legal status. The New Mexico decision, on the other hand, was pure judicial tyranny.
(Illinois Policy Institute). See cartoon below. Once again responding to a "'Conservative' RomneyCare is the same as ObamaCare" troll:
Why do you guys dignify the economically illiterate ramblings of a know-nothing "progressive" troll. Romney's "reform", which NO REAL CONSERVATIVE HAS EVER BACKED, didn't deal with the real problems enacted by Massachusetts in 1996--guaranteed issue and community rating--which resulted in among the highest costing healthcare in the country! (And people wonder why individual market premiums are exploding; guess what the plans have to offer next year? When you have to accept money-losing policyholders, the state has to make up the difference someway...
Romney's reform was a bait-and-switch; liberals wanted single-payer. What happened was the Bush Administration thought was Medicaid dollars were being used to fund uninsured people--which is why Romney used the term 'freeloaders'. What Romney did was convert state pools for uncompensated care into insurance subsidies--but this didn't fix the cost problem: it exacerbated it because insured people usually use more healthcare resources...
(Tom Woods). Maybe I'm just irritable today. But please do not ever ask me this: "Tom, why are you focusing on issue X? That's a stupid non-issue! What about issues Y and Z?"... So just be nice, please.
Well, of course, the trolls are after you.. Among other things, being a (fellow) Catholic libertarian by itself makes you a lightning rod. (I've had differences with young relatives over Francis' abysmal exhortation.) Never mind being in a profession where most historians worship Lincoln and FDR or following the Austrian School of Economics, definitely a minority perspective.
Mediocre, jealous people will always attack or criticize; they lack the courage to stand apart. I think perhaps worse is when they don't care... Keep the faith!
So because Thomas E. Woods has done podcasts I am supposed to respect him? Or am I supposed to respect him because he promotes homeschooling (which promotes disconnection, individualism and misunderstanding)? Just wondering...Because anyone can start a podcast. And anyone can promote homeschooling. Doesn't mean that either of those two things make you smart.
Tom Woods, unlike some derivative "progressive" trolls, has had very good ratings via iTunes. Why would anyone dial in to listen to trolls when original "progressive" crap can't find a decent market share on MSNBC and Air America went bankrupt? (Not tune in to the pretentious rant of some obnoxious condescending elitist? Who would have ever guessed...)
As for bad-mouthing homeschooling as competition to failed monopolistic public education, let me remind the troll of some successful homeschooling professionals: Tom Edison, Frank Lloyd Wright, C.S. Lewis, Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and FDR (Tom may wince at these, but I'm sure his videos will help), Condi Rice, and Robert Frost.
(Tom Woods). Cracker Barrel Old Country Store initially said it would be removing some Duck Dynasty products from its shelves. The response was immediate: we'll boycott you, too. Today, Cracker Barrel relented
Imagine that--customers vote with their wallets. Know your audience, know your customers. If you launch an unprovoked economic attack on someone whom is seen as exercising the right to his own opinion, there may be consequences. Let the customer make his own decision whether to buy Duck Dynasty merchandise; if you don't carry the merchandise your customer wants, he will find other vendors. I give Cracker Barrel credit for admitting they made a mistake, instead of digging their heels deeper in the mud.
get what a number of libertarians are saying when they consider this Phil Robertson thing a non-issue when compared to what power the government is presently giving itself, but these same people need to consider the world we live in.
If we lived in a utopian libertarian society, then all things present would be free market movements and end as such. But we don't. We live in a society that is more and more statist. While liberals have painted (rightly so) conservatives as social theocratic authoritarians, a lot of people forget liberals are just as socially authoritarian. It never ends with giving their benefactors, be they gays, blacks, etc., freedom under the law, but rather force against those opposite of them. Presently, the federal gay marriage ban is lifted, and more states are making it legal. But it doesn't end there. These liberal backers have already begun demanding churches be forced to marry despite their disagreeing with homosexuality.
Something like the present situation with Phil has already begun moving left wing quacks into the realm of "freedom of speech should not include bigotry." I don't need to go on about how messed up this is on so many levels.
Simply put, every huge government infringement on freedom starts somewhere. And Mr Woods was correct in pointing out on his blog the hidden issue regarding this whole situation.
Absolute garbage. The conservative coalition tends to differ on specific issues; they tend to be fiscally conservative, but for instance paleoconservatives like Pat Buchanan don't like interventionist foreign policy, I've known pro-abortion choice conservatives (e.g., Barry Goldwater), etc. I have been strongly pro-immigration, opposed manipulation of science curricula.
It's sad that you buy into the "ban gay marriage" vacuous talking point. DOMA didn't prohibit state recognition of "gay marriage". It simply reinforced the status quo; all 50 states had the traditional definition of marriage. I also want to point out nontraditional marriage was not an unknown issue at the federal level. Plural marriage in the Utah territory was controversial and a relevant bigamy law was signed into law by Lincoln and later was unanimously upheld by SCOTUS. I have criticized libertarians for hypocritically seeking a special legal status for nontraditional relationships. (Just because I tolerate someone with Maoist or Hitler views doesn't mean I have to make him a keynote speaker at a public event.) None of the state referendums sought to prohibit gay relationships--which would have been an infringement of negative liberties. The "ban" term suggests prohibition; no, what the traditionalists were doing is maintaining the status quo against the judicial tyranny we've seen in Massachusetts, California, New Mexico, et al. It's like calling Presidential elections "ban-alien-Presidents" or legislative elections "ban-young-officeholders". It's not a ban--it's a qualification or restriction. Given the traditional evolved social constructs of marriage and family, and the libertarian ideal of voluntary association, when did the majority of voters lose the right to decide relevant considerations?
(Krista Branch). Christmas flash poll: What is the BEST Christmas movie of all time?
I love the 1970 Scrooge (the musical version): the tunes are irresistible.
(Reason Magazine). The pope’s concern with the poor and excluded is well-placed. We should not tolerate their condition or its causes. But what the poor and excluded need are freedom and freed markets —really free markets, not “the prevailing economic system” — so they may be liberated from the oppression that holds them down.
No, I don't like this cotton-candy critique which is thinly-disguised corporate bashing. Corporations are voluntary organizations--which libertarians in general support in principle. STOP MAKING EXCUSES FOR CORRUPT, MANIPULATIVE POLITICIANS. Do you think when FDR instituted price floors on farm commodities it was because all the small farmers were vested in him? He was probably more motivated by the bugaboo of deflation, a belief in government central planning of the economy, concerns about farmer bankruptcies hurting banks, and 101 other things.
The fact is--liberals need no excuse to regulate the economy. They conceptually feel it's necessary for ideological reasons. As for attacks on new business models in rent- or ride-sharing, let's face it: the government is most concerned about feeding the bureaucracy. The fact that Big Hotels and Big Taxis enthusiastically back and capitalize on a government crackdown on fledgling competitions is sort of a win-win. I'm sure, of course, the industries may point out all the money the government is leaving on the table.
Let's face it: megalomaniac government finds consolidation in industry segments easier to regulate. And no doubt companies of scale can more easily absorb the costs of government regulation.
But I don't buy into the plutocracy conspiracy theory (I think it's intellectually lazy and dishonest). There are winners and losers to government regulation; I think Statists make decisions based on hubris, ideology and power. To the extent businesses know their place and support government policies, the government may reward them,
But as a Catholic libertarian, I am appalled by the pope's citing cliches and derivative "progressive" rhetoric--trickle down, social darwinism, income-equality--as if he's a Barry Obama wannabe. It's a caricature unworthy of a first-class mind (Benedict on the other hand was a world-class scholar). This is a man whom comes from one of the least economically free countries on the planet--Argentina. He grew up under economic socialist/progressive populism. He's had no scholarly or practical background in business and economics. His exhortation praises politics as a noble profession. He perpetuates this stereotype of capitalism as based on greed. The fact is whatever imperfections of capitalism among developed economies, it has done more to alleviate poverty than the more collectivist ideologies. The pope's criticism is so shallow: where does he talk about moral hazard, the opportunity costs of Statist policies?
Instead of grading the pope on the curve and trying to find (in vain) some positive spin in the pope's absurd conceptualization of the economy, I would have liked to see more emphasis on Statist policy failure and empire-building: failing public education monopolies, government bailouts of failed businesses and unions.
My Favorite Cable TV Movie Track
Mighty Big Word wrote the song "Fallin' Angel/Angel Like You" which plays a big part in Hallmark's "Christmas Magic"; I recently downloaded a licensed copy, available through vendors like Amazon and iTunes. Carrie, career-oriented, no relationship, estranged from her dad, is a successful event planner involved in a tragic black ice auto accident. She is met on the other side by Henry, a spirit mentor, whom assigns her the case of a Scott Walker, a widower with an 8-year-old daughter. Walker, a former musician who gave it after his wife died in a horrific holiday season auto accident years earlier, owns a struggling diner, living in a tunnel-visioned world of his work and caring for his daughter Abby; Carrie's mission is to snap Walker out of his joyless suicidal funk, rekindle his Christmas spirit as the holiday approaches. She starts by using her background as an event planner to promote his business and finds in Scott her soul mate--but how cruel is that now she is an angel with her visit to end by Christmas?
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Gary Varvel via LFC |
 |
| Courtesy of Michael Ramirez via Illinois Policy Institute |
The Royal Guardsmen, "Snoopy's Christmas". Technically not on my iPod, but from a childhood favorite family album. The song makes an implicit reference to a spontaneous WWI incident (1914), a Christmas Eve truce, wonderfully captured in the 2005 French film Joyeux Noël. (I think I first watched it via Netflix and was so impressed that I ordered a DVD copy.)
