A minimalist approach to essential, transparent, accountable, flat, adaptable, responsive, solution-based government, rooted in virtuous individual autonomy, traditional values and free markets, with a bias towards reduction of government functionality, cost and scope
(FEE).It is not recorded anywhere that Christ called for the state to use its power to redistribute wealth. "It is not recorded anywhere that Christ called for the state to use its power to redistribute wealth." No, he called his followers to do it. Read Matthew 25:35-46. Then look at how America's evangelical mega-churches operate while they "Praise Jesus!" and vote Repuglican while vilifying the downtrodden. "Inasmuch as ye did it not to the least of these, you did it not to me. And you shall receive your 'just' reward." Progressive retard. He was talking about INDIVIDUAL action, not COLLECTIVE action. Salvation is an individual, not collective concept. Not all forms of socialism advocate the use of state power to redistribute wealth. There is no doubt that Jesus condemned coveting a neighbor's goods. (Recall His condemnation of the jealous brother who wanted Jesus to arbitrate the brothers' inheritance.) Jesus also called for a VOLUNTARY response from the individual. As for the discussion of the rich and poor, Jesus was more concerned about the rich worshipping a false god of wealth. All you need to do to see the Church's teaching on Socialism is to read the encyclicals. The Catholic Church has condemned both Socialism and Communism, not just as bad economic systems, but as evil. If this is true why was the pope being so friendly with Castro, and never even acknowledged the Catholic dissidents sitting in prison right there in Cuba. You are right about the existence of evil, but it obviously isn't limited to only socialism or communism. The troll is dead wrong. Pope Francis has condemned Cuba's socialism. The whole of the bible, both the old and new testament are essentially attempts to answer the question- "Am I my brothers keeper?" with a "yes". Sounds like an ideology that provides fertile ground for socialism to take root to me. Utter pretentious bullshit. The Bible is replete with references valuing hard work, savings, etc., not coveting a neighbor's goods. Wealth is often viewed as God's blessing. Jesus never condemned wealth, just its pursuit exclusive of one's obligations to God. Jesus' main mission is salvation, which is an individual, not collective response.
Political Cartoon
Courtesy of the original artist via IPI
Courtesy of the original artist via Libertarian Catholic
Quote of the Day There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. John Swinton
Tweet of the Day
Like cockroaches who come out in the dark when no one is awake, the Congressional debtaholics passed a new 2-year budget scheme.
Randy also said this: “Regulations are not inimical to liberty if they coordinate individual conduct as do, for example, traffic regulations mandating driving on one side of the street or the other. They may also be consistent with liberty if they prevent irreparable tortious accidents before they occur, as speed limits, reasonable driver’s exams, or building codes do. ”
Block, in fact, has written a classic text on the privitzation of roads and highways and takes exception to Barnett's apologetics on behalf of traffic regulations (among other things):
The state’s “regulation” of traffic has resulted in some 35,000 road fatalities annually, for the last umpteen years. liber
I don't own a copy of Block's book, and in this piece he really doesn't elaborate here, but there are other posts like this one on The State’s Human Road Kill Project. Only part of the discussion is really discussed here: the monopoly of the State. I'll also briefly discuss morally hazardous policy. My discussion here is not intended to be a comprehensive response but just a starting point for understanding the libertarian perspective. Obviously Block's text is far more comprehensive.
One of my favorite teaching anecdotes I think comes from cognitive psychologist Donald Norman, who wrote the (currently titled) Design of Everyday Things (or one of his other works). He noticed in one keyboard layout that the "delete document" key was near the enter/return key. He advised the vendor that he expected that users would often delete their documents by mistake; the vendor denied that this was a problem and so they went to talk to users. The administrative assistant agreed that she had done so on a number of occasions. "Why didn't you ever say anything?" "Because I had been trained on how to use the delete document key and felt that it was my mistake."
That is, "blame the user", not the vendor. In fact, the State has effectively a monopoly on roads and/or related services; do you think things like road surface and condition, number of lanes, design (e.g., merge and exit lanes, etc.), sign visibility, congestion, etc. have an impact on accidents? Of course. But you generally can't sue the State for bad roads; the bureaucrats for the most part are shielded from responsibility. There is typically no competition, say of privately-held toll roads, which could be sued or lose customers under unsafe conditions, congested tollways, etc.
There is also the question of moral hazard. If you feel you are following the rules of the road, if you have the right of way, the light is green or yellow, you may engage in riskier driving behavior, not be as observant of the driving behavior of others. One of my favorite video clips is after a power outage took out traffic lights; the traffic was less congested and smoother without functioning lights.
Trump Spoof Using Anderson's Family At Church
No, I'm not an American art guru, but it's amazing how well Google Image search works...
We're still waiting for the first burst of post-debate polls; I'll probably review the third debate over the weekend, but my review of the pundits is that Rubio probably won the night, Fiorina did not improve her position, Trump, unlike the previous debates, was not a focal point--no matter how many Internet polls he cites, I don't think that improves his recent softening in the polls, Carson didn't make a gaffe, and the format tended to favor more of the policy wonks vs. the populists. I think clearly Rubio has the hot hand among the Insiders, with Cruz nipping at his heels.
We have a short break between debates, I think because of the holiday later in the month, next month's debate is in 2 weeks. My guess is that Trump continues to win a slim majority of new polls but his percentages and margins will continue to erode; he will do better in some states than others. I feel that Rubio will improve to the mid-teens and might actually nose out Trump or Carson in a state like Wisconsin or Florida. If and when Rubio breaks the glass ceiling, the dynamics of the race will change--my guess is a month from now, maybe earlier.
I was going to point out Trump nosed out Carson by 1 in PA--but I think 3 of 4 recent polls there are either a 1-point Trump lead or tie. The latest IBD poll just came out, putting Trump at 28, +5 over Carson. What's bothersome is the last IBD poll had Carson up by 7. The overall trend, however, has gone from two-digit leads in August to high-single digits in September to low single-digits this month. IBD suggests that last month's result may have reflected Trump's counterproductive boycott of Fox News but also notes the current poll took place before this week's GOP debate. Still, if the trend holds, we should see Trump's lead collapse within a month.
The disrespectful treatment of Dr. Paul during the speech (loud talking in the background) reminds me of perhaps my most infuriating moment during my graduate school studies. As an MIS doctoral student I was registered in a systems analysis course; the course required a group project. A couple of non-major Indians or Pakistanis recruited me for their group; I am an excellent writer and given a course in my discipline, I didn't want to risk my course grade and negotiated that I would write the final paper. Long story short, the group founders had located and were pushing marketing promotional material directly from IBM on certain dated methodologies that we were reviewing; I refused to plagiarize the hype in the final paper--I knew that the professor would see the hype for what it was. The group leaders in a Machiavellian move breached my contract and stripped the group paper from me; I lost the majority vote in an appeal. (For the others, I don't think it was so much directed at me as the conflict between the group leaders and me, and the rest didn't want to get involved or choose sides. It was probably a case that since the two had founded the group, the other members thought that the founders should have final say--I think maybe one of the others supported me.)
I went to see the professor; she told me to try to work things out with the group, and if not, she would let me to submit the project separately. What I didn't know was that she met with the rest of the group separately and told them that she was going to allow me the option of submitting separately. (This has to be one of the most botched handlings of this type problem I've ever seen; the group had no incentive to work things out. On my part, she was one of my major professors, and I didn't want to alienate her.) I went to the next group meeting, and it took all of 20 seconds for them to tell me to go away; I was ticked off, because I had tried to act in good faith with the professor's wishes.
In any event, I had devised a creative approach to the project linking a very well-known Harvard Business Review article not obvious to the discussion, a key part of my presentation. In another baffling decision, she had told me that I would deliver my presentation after the group. It's not hard to predict what would happen, given the group leaders wanted to plagiarize other sources. To my shock and dismay, they ripped off my own presentation. The professor did nothing. It's not like I could redo my own prepared presentation at the last minute, with transparencies et al. The net effect was to make it look like I had ripped off the group presentation. But that wasn't the end of the nightmare. After they finished, they occupied the front row of the classroom, and as I started to talk, they openly started talking loudly to each other (I don't mean whispering; I mean I could barely hear myself speak over the noise) and kept it going for the remainder of my presentation; this went beyond the obvious disrespect and huge distraction--it was a totally unexpected surprise attack. I had remained totally professional and quiet during their presentation. Once again, the professor did nothing. My segment ended the class; I think I was even angrier with the likable professor than my former group members for not handling the situation. Her terse defensive response was when I confronted her after class that she could see what was going on, and she had given me an excellent grade on my presentation. [We remained on good terms. In fact, she asked me to proofread her CACM article page proofs--but she had already returned the proofs by the time I came back to report her enumerated references were screwed up. But when it came to choosing my dissertation committee, I did not approach her, although most IT academics knew her more than my other professors; I probably would have attracted better job offers with her on my committee.]
I had to deal with a number of group squabbles during my last 6 years as a teaching fellow and professor, but I was determined that I would handle things differently and never saw anything like this. I remember there was a very attractive UH coed who had me for a couple of classes (no, I've never dated one of my current/former students or classmates). Her group members came to complain that she wasn't pulling her weight in the group, so I called her in for a discussion; on my part, I wanted to hear her side of the conflict. Until then she had always been friendly towards me. She was highly offended by the discussion, which she seemed to think I had just made it up, and seemed to personally scapegoat me. Her attitude towards me remained hostile for the remainder of the semester. But other than an Asian group at UWM which fully plagiarized their pesentation (I mean, literally the only thing original was the title--I could link each copy-and-paste paragraph word for word back to unacknowledged original sources), group presentations were not a big issue.
I've written over 2580 posts in this blog, and it's possible that I've written bits and pieces of the above incident before. On a personal note, there was an MBA student who shared my office with 2 other PhD students. Out of the blue, one day he started talking to me about EC, a coed on the Project From Hell. He didn't go into the details of how he came to meet EC or how my name came up; maybe she had dropped by the office in my absence. Mr. Matchmaker made it clear that EC would be very receptive if I tried to ask her out. Not a chance. To this day I remember her turning on me in the group meeting. I've never understood this love/hate thing; when someone does something that angers me, it doesn't turn me on: it turns me off.
Facebook Corner
(Catholic Libertarians). See Image of the Day. "He had no respect for the law: He violated the Sabbath, He attacked without provocation the moneychangers in the Temple, and His disciples carry swords."
Rand Paul Is Going To Filibuster the Corrupt Obama Budget Deal: Thumbs UP!
Is Intervention Moral Policy?
The First Make-A-Wish
Facebook Corner
(Independent Institute). There's been a lot of talk lately about your bacon and red meat causing cancer. Check out an #IndependentClassic and let us know what you think! The big point is that bacon and eggs, eaten in moderation and prepared properly, are very nutritious but have during the last few decades been demonized in the press. The government and the medical establishment all but pushed the disastrous lowfat diet, and there's a clear correlation between the War on Fat/Cholesterol and skyrocketing obesity. We saw people turn away from healthy butter and whole milk to things like hard margarine loaded with trans fats. How many times have we heard the government hype health risks (remember cyclamates and the cancer scare?), only to come back years later with an Emily Litella "Never mind!" We need less nudging from paternalist Big Government.
(Libertarian Catholic). The Emperor Theodosius (about 346 - 395) - in armour and a laurel wreath - is prevented from entering Milan Cathedral by Saint Ambrose (about 340 - 398), bishop of the city. The saint had banned Theodosius from the cathedral after the massacre of a subject population in Thessalonica. Van Dyck has identified one of Theodosius's companions as Ruffinus, whose shameless arrogance Saint Ambrose compared to a dog (which is at his feet).
As libertarians, we think that the Church made a historical mistake by not remaining independent of the State. This allows tyrants to co-opt the Church. Christ made it clear His mandate was not for the earthly realm but the Kingdom of God.
(Reason). John Kasich's ungrammatical, barely coherent remarks nicely illustrated the brain-dead dogmatism of pot prohibitionists. The greatest scourge of the age is the outrageous number of folks in American prisons for doing nothing more than using a weed called marijuana. This is bullshit. I think Reason took out Hillary Clinton for saying the same thing right after the Dem debate:
"About 300,000 people are serving time for drug offenses in state and federal prisons, which represents one-fifth of the total prison population. But only 15 percent of those drug war prisoners (around 45,000 people) are behind bars because of marijuana offenses, and those offenses typically involve cultivation or distribution. Hence it is clearly not true that prison sentences for "nonviolent, low-level offenses" (which include many property crimes as well as drug offenses) "are primarily due to marijuana," let alone possession of marijuana for personal use."
There are sound policy reasons to decriminalize drugs--but you don't win the day by promoting urban myths. It hurts your credibility.
The economically illiterate crackpot fascist Donald "Four Bankruptcies" Trump doesn't have a clue how to grow the economy. It's not by his favored protectionist bullshit and economically lose-lose bellicose threats of trade wars starting with China and Mexico. It's not by some megalomaniac delusion that somehow the name Trump means squat to anti-American regimes. Trump is fixated on trying to save failing business models; the economy will thrive when political whores get the hell out of the way with infeasible, counterproductive regulations and punitive taxes. As if Trump knows anything about fixing an economy; all he's shown is the ability to run 4 businesses into the ground and cheat investors in the process.
I thought it was just delusional Dems who believed in unicorns. No, Huckabee, the GOP will not win the White House by trying to convince voters they are more efficient administrators of insolvent, failed Democratic programs; what we can do is get government out of the healthcare business or at least devolve it to the states. One place to start is the FDA bottleneck on new med approvals. John, who do YOU like tonight?? Stossel endorsed Rand Paul months ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rnUOt8AK4U
[I don't want to hear the fascists demagogue about corrupt corporate welfare anymore.]
Mr. Speaker, I want to express my strong disapproval for this bill for the Export-Import Bank.
This is a pretty profound debate we are having. It’s about what kind of economy we’re going to have. Are we going to reward good work or good connections?
I think there are plenty other ways to expand opportunity in this country, and corporate welfare is not one of them. The biggest beneficiaries of this bank, two-thirds of their money go to 10 companies. Forty percent goes to one company.
And this bank does cost money—just ask the Congressional Budget Office when they use real scorekeeping. Remember Fannie Mae? Remember their accounting? Remember when they told us they weren’t going to cost any money—until they did? And it cost us billions.
The other excuse that I just don’t buy is, ‘other countries do this, so should we.’ We shouldn’t acquire other countries’ bad habits. We should be leading by example. We should be exporting democratic capitalism, not crony capitalism.
There is this criticism by those against the free enterprise system who compare it to competition, like a sport. Where the critics of free enterprise say there’s a winner and there’s a loser, just like a boxing match or a football game. Well, that’s true when it comes to crony capitalism. That is the case when it comes to corporate welfare. Because in that case, the winner is the person with connections. It’s the company with power. It’s the company with clout.
The loser is the person who is out there working hard, playing by the rules, not knowing anybody, not going to Washington, hoping and thinking that the merit of their idea and the quality of their work is what will win the day. That’s what is rewarded under a free enterprise system.
Free enterprise is more about collaboration. It’s more about transactions of mutual benefit where everybody benefits, and the rising tide lifts all boats. Equality for all. Equal opportunity. That’s free enterprise. That’s small d, democratic capitalism. This thing is crony capitalism, and I urge it be rejected.
We noted again last week just how lazy the Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (NYSE:GS) cheaters were when it came to their testing. It turns out another bank is engaged in a brewing cheating scandal as well...
A number of junior analysts at JP Morgan Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM) have been fired for cheating on internal tests. A combination of crib notes and wandering eyes during what is considered a "relatively easy" accounting test has put the firm's training program in focus. Cheating on an accounting test...
It's not like that could lead to problems for a company in the future, right?
I wonder about tests given at the Fed... Or the Treasury Dept.
Political Potpourri
I normally wouldn't post this feature on multiple occasions so frequently this far ahead of actual voting, but the fact that Carson won the two latest polls in Texas and Oklahoma, barely nipping out Trump in the former. The Oklahoma poll is notable in it's one of the first I've seen in a while where the Outsiders have dipped below 50% and Trump under 20%. Rubio and Cruz seem to be rising up as the "Insider" stealth climbers to third and fourth choices. Bush has a stronger showing in Texas than other polls in part because he's a native Texan and his own son holds a statewide position.
I think I need to see more of the other states lean for Carson and Carson win a few more national polls before I call him the frontrunner; as I write, I have not seen the debate which could influence the next few polls. I think though that Carson's unflappable nature is seen as more Presidential.
Clinton is More Worried About Political Survival Than Diplomat Security
Facebook Corner
Ah, the hubris of a central planner! We don't need more efficient Big Government; we need smaller, more localized governance.
The retarded cultists supporting right-fascist Donald "Four Bankruptcies" Trump hypocritically ignore the fact of a corrupt inexperienced unqualified unprincipled billionaire trying to buy the Presidency and has bragged about buying off politicians. Why are you blaming the whore instead of the john? The point is, the economically illiterate buffoon has no right to criticize voluntary associations, as if his right to political speech is "more equal". Besides, the last time I looked into it, Trump had only put about $100K of his own money into the Presidency--chump change for a billionaire. He was using his celebrity status to earn free news coverage almost everywhere. This is classic Trump as a parasitic crony capitalist: as his 4 bankruptcies showed, he put little skin into his infamous deals; it was mostly his reputation and political connections; he stuck other investors with the bills for his business failures.
Choose Life: Differing Responses to Parents' Masks
Aretha Franklin, "(Sweet, Sweet Baby) Since You've Been Gone". This is the last of a string of 6 R&B #1/Hot 100 Top 10 hits in 1967-8. She wasn't done in 1968, but the remainder of the year was more of a mix of peaks on the charts.
Quote of the Day It is the highest form of self-respect to admit mistakes and to make amends for them. John J. McCloy
Congratulations, KC Royals, on Record Marathon World Series Game One Victory!
Image of the Day
An Ironic Twist
I don't have many explicit followers of my blog and/or Twitter feeds; most of my Twitter followers are fellow pro-liberty people. (I wasn't aware of Twitter Analytics until recently; my tweet impressions are increasing, particularly these last two months, in part because I've published more frequently.) I somehow imagined if I attracted a political candidate to follow me, it would be maybe a member of the GOP House Liberty Caucus, Rand Paul (who I follow), but a Democrat Congressional candidate? Maybe she hasn't read all my tweets yet... Of course, some people who follow you don't necessarily agree with you; I think Rand Paul follows at least one of GOP rivals (which I know, since Twitter suggested him to follow). Of course, I've tweeted some humorous or sarcastic tweets at the expense of Trump and others.
Follow-Up Odds and Ends: Kim Davis and the Westboro Baptists
The Westboro Baptists, who have done things like threatened to picket the funeral of a murdered little Catholic girl (because of her faith: among other things, the vehemently anti-Catholic Baptists have called Catholic priests sexual vampires who feed on the semen of young boys), recently picketed Davis for "enabling fag marriage", for hypocritically marrying 3 different men four times, and for being a sinful oath breaker who didn't fulfill her public oath of office. I'm not quite sure how the first and third reasons are consistent or how exactly Kim Davis has enabled "gay marriage" by refusing to sign relevant paperwork. Some days you just can't catch a break. I'm just wondering if the Westboro Baptists are also protesting civil divorce proceedings...
Love Gov? Better Get a Prophylactic...
Political Potpourri
Well, on the eve of the third GOP Presidential debate, some important new poll results: Carson just topped Trump by 4% in a CBS national poll, which I think is the first time I think I've seen Trump lose a national GOP poll at a significant advantage over the last several weeks; if I'm not mistaken, Carson nipped Trump in one interim poll. This blog is not favorably disposed to a Trump nomination, so polls showing a GOP base majority fine with a Trump nomination and a short burst of state polls showing improbable (in the face of tightening polls elsewhere) blowout leads by Trump, a couple with Trump over the 40% level have been demoralizing. I'm having problems believing some of these polls after a cluster of narrow 4-5 point leads in a long string of states, and it's not that I'm in a state of denial; for example, a CBS poll Sunday had Trump with a 17-point lead in SC and Clemson today released one showing a 4-point lead. Of course, the Clemson poll may be an anomaly. But the earlier polls this month were Trump's best SC showing since early August; it seems wildly improbable that the race was narrowing elsewhere but widening in SC.
Another anomaly was, after showing Carson with a high-single digit lead in Iowa, suddenly Trump had pulled back into a tie, before the last two polls showing Carson with a 2-digit lead. But the last Florida poll also showed Trump's once double-digit lead shrinking to 3.
It looks like Rubio is more consistently hanging in a distant third (except the recent Wisconsin poll showing a near 3-way tie); it looks like Cruz is edging into a close fourth position, perhaps gaining a little from Trump's apparent decline in the polls.
Drudge has begun to bother me with his obvious push of Trump. For instance, he hasn't linked to the latest Carson poll, although Breitbart, which is a prominent source for Drudge's links, has featured the story. There's a story suggesting that Rubio will be targeted tomorrow night--even though Trump and Carson account for 40% or more of most recent polls (Rubio is barely in double-digits and has missed double digits in several polls, including the current CBS poll). I do expect as Trump's most competitive opponent, Carson will be a target. I also think a number of the candidates noted that Fiorina got a bump in the polls by taking it to Trump. Rubio recently criticized Trump's immigration madness, so knowing Trump, I expect him to go after Rubio as being soft on immigration and part of the group behind the Senate bill that never passed in the House.
I continue to believe that Rand Paul will do a lot better than 5-6% showings currently projected. He has some very motivated supporters, and I heard one pundit suggest today that young people, who normally rely on cell vs. landline phones, are not being adequately sampled. I don't know the methodologies being used, but I'm sure that pollsters realize that the landline phone business is dying (I haven't had lineline service for years).
I may publish a one-off post on the third debate, but watching the World Series has a higher personal priority.
Facebook Corner
(Drudge Report). GE closes manufacturing plant in Ryan's district, moves to Canada... Matt Drudge is a pro-fascist, anti-trade, anti-immigrant fearmonger. Only an economically-illiterate Know Nothing would promote this kind of utterly clueless bullshit.
(Judge Andrew Napolitano). Obama Administration & Religious Liberties There is no legitimate intervention by the fascist State, period, on private employment matters. The Fourteenth Amendment applies to government discrimination. When I choose to work, I knowingly surrender some of my rights; for example, as a salaried/exempt employee, I've often had to travel, work late, holidays or weekends--always without extra pay or benefits, but I took the job knowing I would need to accommodate my personal schedule. The salient point here, as the Judge notes, is these people went into the job knowing beer deliveries were part of the job--just like Kim Davis knew going into her job, that SCOTUS was likely to overturn traditional marriage laws. Now generally speaking, I think as a matter of employee morale, an employer should seek to accommodate the idiosyncratic preferences of its employees when it's feasible, but what if I've already assigned Muslims or anti-alcohol employees to the few routes without beer deliveries and my business model includes a lot of beer deliveries? Am I supposed to change my business model, to drop beer deliveries altogether? Otherwise, I might have to institute a Muslim hiring quota, which I'm sure the EEOC would have problems with. But I'm calling it bullshit also for a reason the Judge doesn't mention although he implies it in terms of letting deputy clerks under Kim Davis process "gay marriage" paperwork. The Muslim prohibition is on PERSONAL consumption, not on the commerce of other people. It would be one thing if the employer forced the Muslim workers to drink beer. Now you can rationalize all sorts of absurd things like the workers by delivering beer were aiding and abetting alcohol consumption, but that's not their call to make. Other people have the liberty to make their own moral decisions about drinking; you do not have the "right" to impose your religious/moral practices on others. So the idea that beer delivery is a matter of protected matter of conscience is crackpot.
(Reason). Go home, Republican voters. You're drunk. [referencing polls suggesting up to 70% of Republican voters could live with a Trump nomination] Wow. Reason becoming the mouthpiece for the Republican establishment. Comical Wrong. The right-fascist Donald "Four Bankruptcies" Trump is totally unacceptable to both libertarians and conservatives; I know because I'm both, and this pompous, self-serving, crony capitalist, pro-eminent domain, economically illiterate. flip-flopping, incompetent, unqualified, ill-tempered, unprincipled, arrogant son of a bitch is as RINO as they come. He's trying to buy the Presidency on the cheap. How retarded a cultist do you have to be to believe that a man who takes pride in buying political favors is can lead, when nobody in Congress in either party wants anything to do with him?
