FEE is offering a free copy of “Common Sense Economics”

Details here.

Anarcho-capitalism in the “Wild” West

Read about it here.

Upton Sinclair: evil propagandist

“In this connection, historians with an ideological axe to grind against the market usually ignore an authoritative 1906 report of the Department of Agriculture’s Bureau of Animal Husbandry. Its investigators provided a point-by-point refutation of the worst of Sinclair’s allegations, some of which they labeled as “willful and deliberate misrepresentations of fact,” “atrocious exaggeration,” and “not at all characteristic.”

Instead, some of these same historians dwell on the Neill-Reynolds Report of the same year because it at least tentatively supported Sinclair. It turns out that neither Neill nor Reynolds had any experience in the meat-packing business and spent a grand total of two and a half weeks in the spring of 1906 investigating and preparing what turned out to be a carelessly written report with predetermined conclusions. Gabriel Kolko, a socialist but nonetheless a historian with a respect for facts, dismisses Sinclair as a propagandist and assails Neill and Reynolds as “two inexperienced Washington bureaucrats who freely admitted they knew nothing” of the meat-packing process. Their own subsequent testimony revealed that they had gone to Chicago with the intention of finding fault with industry practices so as to get a new inspection law passed.”

Read more: 
http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/of-meat-and-myth#ixzz2KZn2XIIh

A good overview of Austrian Economics

President Bush wins a fourth term

Peel away the rhetoric, and one can see that Obama’s reelection will result in the same Progressive-neocon policies that he’s been enacting since 2008.  Buy land and gold and silver to protect yourself, and if you need some sort of political outlet, then focus on state politics.  Elect state representatives who will stand up to the FedGov; that’s really the only realistic hope the liberty movement ever had.

It should be quite obvious that the best thing to happen would be for the country to split up into regional nations, and get rid of the Federal Government.  Most people are too scared of liberty to ever consider this possibility, unfortunately.

Too bad the GOP didn’t nominate Ron Paul; he could have won the election by hitting Obama where he was truly weak: foreign policy.  Most Americans are really tired of the whole “perpetual war” policy that Bush started and Obama embraced.  Oh, well; at least I got to write his name in (that’s right; there was a space for write-ins on the MS ballot, after all.  They just don’t count a write-in vote unless one of the candidates on the ballot are in some way incapacitated).

Chuck Baldwin tells it straight

Oh, boy, does he ever.  If one reads this article and still insists on voting for Romney as the “lessor of two evils”, or whatever, then one has the comprehension capacity of a turnip.

An excerpt:
“As I have noted in previous columns, the differences between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are miniscule on virtually every salient issue. They both supported TARP; they both supported Obama’s economic stimulus package; they both supported so-called assault weapons bans and other gun control measures; Obama has an “F” rating from Gun Owners of America, while Romney has a “D-” rating from GOA; neither man supports a balanced budget; neither man opposes foreign aid; they both supported the bailout of the auto industry; they both have a track record of being big spenders; they both fully support the Federal Reserve; they both oppose a full audit of the Fed; they are both supporters of universal health care; both men are showered with campaign contributions from Wall Street; neither of them wants to eliminate the IRS or the direct income tax; both men are on record as saying the TSA is doing a “great job”; they both supported the NDAA, including the indefinite detention of American citizens without due process of law; they both supported the renewal of the Patriot Act; they both believe that the President has “executive power” to assassinate and kill; both support the “free trade” agenda of the global elite; they are both soft on illegal immigration; they both support NAFTA and CAFTA; they both have a history of appointing liberal judges; they both believe the President has the authority to take the nation to war without the approval of Congress; and neither of them has any qualms about running up more public debt to the already gargantuan debt of 16 trillion dollars.”

Answering Reason.com’s questionnaire

Reason.com has posed its questionnaire concerning the upcoming election to a variety of folk.  Here are my answers:

1.  Which presidential candidate are you voting for and why?
I’m leaning toward Gary Johnson, now, although I was ready to vote for Virgil Goode a couple of weeks ago, because of the antepartum infanticide issue.  Well, since millions of  “pro-life” Christians are quite willing to vote for Romney, who is effectively pro-choice, then no one can really say anything against a pro-life Christian who is voting for Gary Johnson.  I’m unsure how committed he is to non-interventionism, while I’m pretty sure that Goode is solidly opposed to the “War on Terror.”  On the other hand, Goode is clearly insane when it comes to that police state-creating initiative popularly known as the “War on Drugs.”  I care not one whit for narcotics, and advise anyone who considers using them to “just say no.”  But the “War on Drugs” is not about ending drug use.  It is, rather, the gov’t's way to implement the legal and logisitical framework for martial law.
Free Trade is also another major issue where G. Johnson is superior to Goode.  The Constitution Party incredibly believes that free trade leads to socialism, and so they oppose it vociferously.  This means that Constitution Party candidates are in reality in favor of government control of people’s purchasing decisions.  Just like Mitt “I’m a buffoon when it comes to economics” Romney.

2a.  Between Barak Obama and Mitt Romney, who do you think would be worse regarding economic freedom, including such things as industrial policy, free trade, regulation, and taxes?
It’s really hard to say.  Romney has a bit of the rhetoric on his side, but his China-bashing shows he has very little understanding of the free market.  Obama is a thorough moron on the subject.  If one could trust a candidate’s rhetoric, I’d say that Romney is better, but one must remember that Romney thought that the government forcing people to purchase health insurance (which his Massachussetts health care plan did) was a “free market solution” to the “problem” of people not having health insurace (regardless whether or not they actually needed it.)  AND Romney thinks that trade is a zero-sum game.  The man’s a buffoon.  He’ll get into office, and try the same Keynesian nonsense that George “I had to violate free market principles in order save the free market” Bush did, resulting in more monetary inflation (which will, at some point, turn into price inflation with a vengeance), more regulation, lower production of goods and services, and a lower quality of life for any and everyone who does not work in an industry favored by the FedGov.

2b.  Between Barak Obama and Mitt Romney, who do you think would be worse regarding social freedom issues such as gay marriage, free speech, school choice, and reproductive rights?
Both of them have openly stated a desire for (and in Obama’s case actually took action to effect) the power to throw American citizens in prison without a trial.  What is so astounding to me is so many so-called conservatives aren’t in any way upset about this.  If Romney came out and said that he believes that the FedGov has the authority to go into people’s homes without a warrant and confiscate their firearms, I would at least hope that “conservatives” would be up in arms, demanding that Romney retract that position.  Well, his support for the NDAA of 2012 is actually worse than such a supposed attack on the 2nd amendment.  If the president can throw you in prison without a trial, then he can take your firearms away at a whim; he can, in fact, do any variety of unConstitutional activities with impunity.
As to the social issues, Obama is openly for child-murder, Romney is secretly for it (when he says he supports the right of a woman to get an abortion for “health reasons”, that includes “mental health”, which means basically anything.  If a woman feels depressed about having a baby, then she can go to the doctor and get permission to kill the child to “protect her mental health.”)  Antepartum infanticide is a clear violation of the “non-aggression principle”, so it’s hypocritical for self-describe libertarians to support the heinous practice.  On the other hand, the crime of murder is a state matter; Federal Authorities rarely investigate murders, and it’s better for liberty generally that murder be prosecuted by state and local authorities.
There’s no such thing as “gay marriage”, as marriage, by definition, is a heterosexual union.  I don’t care if two men (or two women) want to hold out the preposterous idea that they’re married to each other, what I’m opposed to is them getting the government to use violence to try to force me to say the same thing.

2c. Between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, who do you think would be worse regarding foreign policy, military interventions, and the global war on terror (including domestic restrictions on civil liberties)?
As I mentioned before, both loonies are in support of the NDAA of 2012, which should be a deal-breaker for anyone who considers himself a devotee of the Constitution.  On the war itself, Obama is clearly Bush’s third term; if he were a Republican, then you would hear no end of praise for him from the likes of Muttonhead Limbaugh and Snotnoggin Hannity with regard to his foreign policy.  This is the opposite of the economics question, in which both are approximately equally bad though Romney has better rhetoric.  Obama’s 2008 anti-war rhetoric is better than Romney’s insane proposals to continue the puerile, counterproductive, stupid policy of perpetual war, but Obama never even tried to live up to his campaign rhetoric.  It’s a bit ironic, but had Obama followed through with his campaign promises, then the economy would be doing quite a bit better than it is currently doing; the wars are destroying the American economy more quickly than even “Obamacare” will when it gets fully implemented.

3.  Who did you vote for in 2000, 2004, and 2008?  Bush, Bush, and McCain.  What a hideous thing to have to live down, too.

4.  Apart from the presidency, what do you think is the most important race or ballot initiative being decided this fall?  There are various state initiatives that seek to legalize marijuana.  While I oppose marijuana use, I support state governments trying to thwart the will of the Federalis in every issue that they can. 

5.  Reason’s libertarian motto is “Free Minds and Free Markets.”  In contemporary America, is that notion a real possibility or a pipe dream?  Well, when the Federal Government eventually collapses under its own weight, then the free market, at least, will become a reality posthaste.  Until that time, it will grow in power whether the Republicans or the Democrats are in charge.

There’s no such thing as an “unregulated Free Market”

Even were all governments zapped to Alpha Centauri, the free market would not be unregulated, because the market is its own regulator, through prices and competition.  Businesses that do not provide value for their service or product are punished harshly and quickly by discriminating customers who search for the best deal they can get for their money.  Government regulation is almost always counterproductive, and tends to limit competition in the marketplace, which means that it interferes with the natural, self-regulating processes that would normally weed out badly managed firms and reward well-run and innovative firms.  It is utopian nonsense to claim that government regulation is necessary to keep the “excesses” of the market from wreaking havoc on society.  The only institution that reliably wreaks havoc is government.

“True Conservatives” should fear a Romney/Ryan win next month

This is an idea I derived from an article over at lewrockwell.com.  The economy is on the verge of distruction.  Obama, doubling down on the economic policies of President Bush, has driven it there.  If Romney/Ryan had any sort of a clue at all how the economy works, then getting them into office might result in some benefit.  But Romney/Ryan are as absolutely clueless about how the economy works as Obama ever was.  How can they not be, when both supported TARP?  Both men think that government spending is a necessary element to economic growth.  Plus, both Romney and Ryan are warmongers, so expect their administration to continue to waste resources that could be used productively.
The problem is, as the article above argued, that the narrative about these guys is that they are pro-free market, so that when they get into office and follow their pro-gov’t, anti-market policies which will inevitably fail, then the free market will get the blame for big-gov’t-style policies, and the need to “return” to big-gov’t-style policies will be loudly proclaimed.

Remember, a vote for Romney is a vote for Obama, since they have the same policy prescriptions for “fixing” the economy, national security, et al.  If you truly want to get back to a limited government, then vote third party.

Bastiat and the always-popular “Theory of Scarcity”

Which is preferable for man and for society, abundance or scarcity?

“What!” people may exclaim. “How can there be any question about it? Has anyone ever suggested, or is it possible to maintain, that scarcity is the basis of man’s well-being?”

Yes, this has been suggested; yes, this has been maintained and is maintained every day, and I do not hesitate to say that the theory of scarcity is by far the most popular of all theories. It is the burden of conversations, newspaper articles, books, and political speeches; and, strange as it may seem, it is certain that political economy will not have a completed its task and performed its practical function until it has popularized and established as indisputable this very simple proposition: “Wealth consists in an abundance of commodities.”

Do we not hear it said every day: “Foreigners are going to flood us with their products”? Thus, people fear abundance.

Has not M. de Saint-Cricq7* said: “There is overproduction”? Thus, he was afraid of abundance.

Do not the workers wreck machines? Thus, they are afraid of overproduction, or—in other words—of abundance.

Has not M. Bugeaud8* uttered these words: “Let bread be dear, and the farmer will be rich”? Now, bread can be dear only because it is scarce. Thus, M. Bugeaud was extolling scarcity.

Has not M. d’Argout9* based his argument against the sugar industry on its very productivity? Has he not said again and again: “The sugar beet has no future, and its cultivation cannot be extended, because just a few hectares of sugar beets in each department10* would be enough to supply all the consumers in France”? Thus, as he sees things, good consists in barrenness and scarcity; and evil, in fertility and abundance.

Do not La Presse, Le Commerce, and the majority of the daily newspapers publish one or more articles every morning to prove to the Chambers11* and to the government that it is sound policy to legislate higher prices for everything through manipulation of the tariff? Do not the Chambers and the government every day comply with this injunction from the press? But tariffs raise the prices of things only because they reduce their supply in the market! Thus, the newspapers, the Chambers, and the government put the theory of scarcity into practice, and I was right to say that this theory is by far the most popular of all theories.