The banks, however, are another matter altogether, and this is where I think capitalism has hit a roadblock. The government has intervened to save many of them, and now, these bailed out banks want to hand out billions in bonuses to their non-performing employees. Capitalism gave way to welfare economics, and now the government has to intervene further to limit these looters from behaving badly by imposing taxes and regulations. A whole messy cycle that brings me to the core “bug” in the system that Rand once sold me on, fully and completely.

Too many sacred tenets in Rand’s philosophy stand violated. Integrity, justice, fairness, work-ethic, excellence–all have fallen prey to greed. Rand’s flaw? She assumed integrity is implicit in the characters of the “leaders.” It isn’t. And hence again, most intelligent people are coming to the conclusion that the government must intervene to stop further shameless looting of taxpayer money. Free-market capitalism gets halted, regulation makes sense.

First of all, “free-markets” do not imply there is a lack of fraud regulation. Free individuals can communicate and collectively punish offenders more ruthlessly than a government can. The State remains necessary for the enforcement of contracts between free agents.

The other notion I find fascinating is that we somehow Free Markets invested too much stock in “integrity.” The reality is that the more we rely on The State to regulate, the more we invest in the “integrity” of politicians who are increasingly less accountable.

The dangerous notion, however, is that markets can be destroyed. You can’t destroy a market, you merely shift it. Decisions that are removed from what we consider a traditional free-market and placed in the hands of The State still occur. But all you’ve done is created a Market of Influence, and in the process removed the majority of people from having a say.

The more authority you remove from capital and consumer markets and invest in government, the more powerful the engine for graft and fraud. Concentrated power is far easier to co-opt, purchase and subvert.

“Markets” are not a theory, they are a fact. There will always be markets determining what resources are available and how they are allocated. The difference comes with how much freedom you have as an individual, and how much of a say you have in the outcomes. Doubling-down on a State-run market isn’t an act of “avoiding the flaws of Capitalism,” it’s just a riskier way of abdicating responsibility, and pushing all your chips into the middle for the most powerful to play with.

Maybe Mitra is right, and Capitalism is flawed. But it’s better than the alternatives, and handing control to The State only shifts the activity to the highest of high-rollers.

Hopefully, what is good for ratings will be good for the country… You know, doing their job.

Good find Instanpundit!

Should we shout, lie, slander and attack those that disagree with us? Will winning be worth the cost?

Democrats ruthlessly attacked and slander President Bush (43), and rarely did Republicans come to his defense. 43 wasn’t the best of presidents, but he certainly wasn’t Hitler, a mass murderer, an idiot, or any thousands of things we was called. This set the national tone and the argument. By not responding in kind did Republicans lose all that they had gained?

These are close to debilitating to her business.

During the course of the conversation, she mentioned her dissatisfaction with the Democrats for three reasons: their approach to taxes, regulatory proposals, and their not moving on gay rights issues. She was also quite adamant that many within the Gay community agree with her.

Is there a potential partnership between Gay Rights and Libertarian groups? If so, what are the next steps to exploring how we might work together and welcome each other into the fold?

Do the Democrats “own” the gay vote? It would seem that they are representing less and less of them every day. The question is, are the Republicans ready to support their needs and views?

Even more likely is that this group may become a large independent swing block of votes. If 10% of Americans are Gay and a quarter to a half of them are conservative in their fiscal leanings, then that could be a game changer.

It seems unlikely that a Libertarian candidate will win the White House anytime soon, and just as long till there is a Libertarian majority in either the House or Senate.

That being said, what are we to do? The only option open to us is to identify both Republicans and Democrats who tend toward Libertarian ideals of fiscal conservatism and social liberalism. In order to affect change in this country, it seems we must work within the halls of power.

Building a viable movement will take time and money. There is a much more cost effective path to having an impact, which is to influence current members of the House and Senate as well as potential candidates at the local levels.