Agents of Liberty

I'm Back; Great Depression

noreply@blogger.com (Thomas Aquinas) — Wed, 06 May 2009 08:03:00 +0000

I've been gone for a while as school came to an end, but it ended last week (I got two A's for sure, including one in Macro Economics) so I'm back. I've encountered a crap load of idiocy lately so hopefully will have a lot of things to write about, and my only problem will be to figure out how to separate the subjects into manageable and readable articles.

Until then here is the research paper I wrote for my English class this semester.

For a little back ground, the paper is on the Great Depression, a topic I choose because of its relevance today with the current depression, blah blah blah. The length assigned was six pages, I wrote 8. I separated it into four sections: Causes of the Great Depression, Hoover, FDR and WWII.

We went over Keynes a lot in my Macro class so I couldn't stop from writing about four pages on Keynes and the the causes, I also wrote about 3/4th of a page on the Austrian Theory of the Business Cycle, which I talk about a lot on this site but don't explain very often. Because, of the long first part I skimped on Hoover, FDR and WWII giving each of them only about a page. I believe this is alright because as the paper evolved it turned into two parts: how the government caused it through the bank credit expansion and then how the government prolonged it, where I used opportunity cost

(which was borrowed from about 7 different books I read. In the class we had to give presentations on the sources we would use in the paper, my presentation was basically explaining five books no one had ever heard of and then saying I know about 40 others no one has ever heard of [other than economists, hard-core Austrians, etc.] and I don't know how to narrow it down. I then preceded to handle 15 minutes of non-stop questions which somehow morphed from gov. intervention in the Great Depression to the plausibility of anarchy, suffice it to say I doubt anyone who was truly paying attention will look at things in the same light again)

to show how markets weren't allowed to correct themselves. (How'd you like that blockquote idea with the huge parenthesis thing there, genius idea, huh.)

The paper is in PDF form, you can download a reader here and read it here

Mike

Liveblogging Meltdown Ch.1 The Elephant in the Room

noreply@blogger.com (Thomas Aquinas) — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 19:22:00 +0000

When I went to Florida on Spring Break this year I tried to buy Meltdown: A Free-Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and Government Bailouts Will Make Things Worse, By Tom Woods (my favorite author by the way) for a few relatives at three different book stores, well all of them were sold out and the last even mentioned the publisher is completely sold out.

So these posts (one for each chapter) will be mainly for those relatives for whom I could not buy the book, remember these will in no way live up to the book, not even close, so make sure you buy a copy as soon as it comes back out.

Chapter 1 - The Elephant in the Living Room

The stock market has been falling since last fall, and, predictably, just about everyone is blaming it on too much free markets and not enough regulation.

Woods shows that no one even mentions the Fed or the one percent interest rates, that is except for Jim Rogers, James Grant, Peter Schiff and the members of the Austrian School of Economics - those who predicted the crisis that is.

The government's cure for the crisis? More of the same of course, bigger government and more regulation masquerading first a s republican and then as ' hope and change.'

In the book Woods promises to show how the Fed screwed up the economy by manipulating interest rates and how the only school that predicted the crisis, the Austrian School, is also the only one which has a viable solution.

Defending Peter Schiff

noreply@blogger.com (Thomas Aquinas) — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 20:01:00 +0000

Peter Schiff is probably, right now, the fore most advocate of Austrian Economics, so when I saw one of the financial bloggers I read ripping him, I thought I'd need to post a reply.

What if one hundred years later: the little town has expanded to take up a whole country, and as the government took control of money and made it illegal for anyone else to produce money the majority of the citizens in the country stopped saving and got jobs in the service industry, contracting out most of the manufacturing jobs to another country across the sea, as they were doing this a lot of them paid for this using money obtained on credit from the second country.

Also, while all of this was happening, the government who had a monopoly over the money forced billions of it into the banking system and bullied them into lending it to people to buy houses who could not pay it back.

Then, the banks repackaged the loans and they were sold as AAA debt?

A bubble would be created in housing prices, because so many people would be bidding for them that the prices would shoot up, then as a result of the prices shooting too high builders would build even more houses, and people would start trying to speculate on the houses, using mortgages with no money down.

Once the housing prices dropped even a little all the speculators who had 'bought' houses with no money would just walk away and foreclosures would spiral upwards, then the money would start coming due to those who would not afford them in the first place.

As the housing prices were falling and foreclosures were mounting the idiots who bought the repackaged debt would face huge losses, which in the free market is the only signal that says stop doing what you're doing the market thinks the resources should be allocated elsewhere.

This is what happened in America, and Peter Schiff, Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, Tom Woods, Walter Block and every other Austrian Economist predicted it starting in 2002 when the fed started decreasing the interest rates.

Yes, a broken clock can be right twice a day, but when a group of hundreds of economists and hundreds of thousands of their students have used logical theory to predict every recession or depression in the 20th century in any country and to explain all those before, it is most likely because they are correct.

Also, a few more things:

Schiff does not think everything in our economy would be going to zero if the government stayed out of it, he believes the malinvestment, which you mentioned as an overabundance of investment that didn't perform, would be liquidated and we would be out of it, this is what happened in 1920 and even after production dropped 21% in one year the downturn only lasted about a year and a half.

By 'plowing' money into the system the only thing that happens is price inflation and a perversion of incentives that tells bankers they can take whatever risk they want because the government will be there to back them up. These companies that are being propped up are too big to be allowed to stay alive, our already screwed up economy cannot take so much money being wasted on crap, when the money should be allowed to be allocated to more efficient firms and people who if they earn a profit would be, by definition, helping society.

With your debt in a 'real' economy, that would be correct, but in America we are no longer manufacturers so the money we borrow from China goes back to China and other Asian countries to produce things or to service industries who will in turn spend it on more service industries or more things from outside the US. When this happens the debt is not invested in anything, so a lot of won't be paid back.

We had the gold standard for a few years of the depression, but ti wasn't effective because FDR and Hoover did bank holidays and effectively canceled it out before FDR killed the gold standard and just banned owning gold at all outright in 1934.

The War did not get us out of the depression, it was the end of the war and the end of government spending that got us out of the depression in 1946.

And as for Schiff's investment record, he cannot reveal it because he was not an investment adviser until this year, but from what I've read most of his clients fell less than the stock market did last year the guy who showed Mish his portfolio invested like a week before the peak and sold out his whole portfolio like two weeks after the trough.

In his book Schiff said that the foreign markets would likely fall with the US until they decoupled, and he advised holding a lot of cash until then, so to imply he was totally wrong with his investment advise because he had a bad 6 months, which he predicted would happen, and got a chance to average into his investment is not very logical, especially for a value investor.

Also, Schiff is effectively a value investor, a few weeks back on his podcast one of his researchers at his firm was interviewed, and they do fundamental analysis on each stock they recommend, forecasting its cash flows and only buying those with low multiples and high dividends.

-

More to come later, I will be 'live blogging' Tom Woods' new book Meltdown.

Say's Law; Job 'Creation'; Private Defense; Profit & Loss

noreply@blogger.com (Thomas Aquinas) — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 08:03:00 +0000

Free Speech Board

The question has yet to be changed, so a new answer was very poignant this week:
I’ll tell you what is not (desirable) this question still being up here.

Also, someone wrote that people should get rid of the delusion of equality because people are inherently unequal, which is a huge positive.

Macro

This week we talked about Say’s Law, which basically says in a market system: as an entrepreneur supplies things he creates his demand for what other’s supply. At first savings (Some deluded Keynesians still believe this, including one of my more ignorant roommates) was thought to be a leakage in the system, until it was shown that savings creates the capital which businesses use to create supply, this is correct.

However, a guy named Malthus came said there is still a leakage in the cycle, when money is hoarded, however this is also incorrect.

Those who read this blog should be familiar with the fact that inflation is an increase in the money supply, this pushes the prices up. Conversely, when money is taken out of a system deflation is the result and prices fall correspondingly.

But, the amount of money taken out is so infantile it would take a while for the market to respond, you may say. This is possibly true, but then it must also be true that money hoarded does not represent a big enough amount of the money supply to create a depression as well.

Government Job Creation

A lot has been talked about in the news lately about the ‘jobs that Obama will be ‘creating.”
This is a huge fallacy, and an easy one to see. As Henry Hazlitt and Frederic Bastiat observed to create a correct economic framework, one must not look only at the short range consequences for one group of people, but at all the consequences for every group of people.

For the supposed job creation it is necessary to remember that government cannot create any sort of wealth it can only redistribute wealth. In the same vein the government certainly cannot create any jobs; it can only redistribute the jobs from where the free market thought they should be, so by definition the jobs will be unproductive and contribute nothing to society.

Private National Defense

I’m skipping the movie review this week, to finish my review of Bob Murphy’s Chaos Theory
In his private defense essay Murphy again uses insurance as his basis for how a free market could provide defense.

He stars with the example of an earthquake, if people lived in an area with earthquake risk, they could get insurance to protect their interest if there was an earthquake. To protect itself the insurance company would charge lower rates to those who had home that would serve better in an earthquake and would make sure people went to a safe place in the event, or forfeit their claims.

The same theory can be used for national defense, people could get insurance against attack, where the insurance company would pay for any damages and would pay money to their estate if they were killed.

With competition defense companies would be created and used by insurance companies to lower the risk of attack.

After this explanation, Murphy shows how the Calculation Problem (which I used in my defense of Anarchy) makes it so government defense cannot work efficiently (what would you rather have? A private company defending you to as efficiently as possible or people you don’t know forcibly taking your money and using it to spend $600 on toilet seats?).

Profit & Loss

Profit & Loss is a three-part, 56 page essay by Ludwig von Mises.

In the essay Mises shows that those who condemn profit without referring to loss are missing the point; entrepreneurs must face profit and loss in their business, in order to have the privilege to allocate scarce resources away from other uses they must earn a profit, if they do not they are run out of business, by operating at a loss.

This system makes it so that those who run big businesses can only stay that way by satisfying the public (which in a voluntary economy earning a profit would mean that one satisfied his customer, or they would not do business with him) and earning a profit, instead of condemning big business it should be revered, if the business was not making the lives of society better it would no longer be a big business.

Profit & Loss is a good quick read, especially good for those who wish to convert ignorant Keynesian or socialist friends to the correct economic way of thinking.

Quote of the Week

Life, liberty, and property don't exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place. ~Frederic Bastiat

Sources, this week

Equality; Price Controls; Chaos Theory; The Patriot

noreply@blogger.com (Thomas Aquinas) — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 20:33:00 +0000

Free Speech Board

The question was is equality good.

The only answer as of this writing was, “Equality is always desirable, but maybe not always attainable.”

I believe one thing should be equal: everyone’s property rights. Nothing else can be held equal without initiating force.

Also, I do not understand what the fetish is with equality, people were made differently, and can do different things better than others. That’s just how it is! This stupid idea that there should be equality of opportunity or equality of outcomes is absolutely contrary to nature and should be dropped for a more logical philosophy that will have better logical outcomes.

Macro

We just took the test on the market model, so I thought I’d talk about artificial price ceilings and floors.

Ceilings

A price ceiling is when the government says no one can charge more than a certain amount for an item. For example the government may say that gas cannot cost more than $2 per gallon.

What then happens is the firms who sell the gas will supply the amount they would have if the
actual market price was $2, so some companies who could only profitably sell gas at $3 per gallon will stop selling. At the same time consumer demand for the gas will go way up because they can buy it at only $2 per gallon, so people who would only buy $20 before will fill up their tanks and people will speed up faster and drive more, thus more gas will be bought than before. So as the supply falls because firms cannot make money of the current price, the demand will sharply rise and buy up all the gas, thus there will be a shortage. Anyone who lived through the ‘70’s should remember this happening.

Floors

The best example for a price floor is minimum wages; currently the government says no one can sell his labor for less than $6.25 per hour.

So what happens is many people go out and try to find jobs paying this amount or more, upping the supply, but the firms who before purchased the labor for less than $6.25 will no longer demand the labor, and a surplus, or unemployment, of labor will be created.

Maybe, an easier explanation would be corn: (I have no idea what the price of corn is) say the government puts a price floor on corn saying people cannot charge less than $200 for it. Farmers would then en masse start growing corn to earn the higher profits on it, while at the same time people would change to eating green beans and other things instead of the expensive corn, the result, way too much corn than is needed and many farmers who need money to buy clothes and water, but instead have a crapload of corn.

The lesson: anytime government screws around with prices it takes away the proper market signals that show how much should be supplied of products and create shortages or surpluses of those products.

Chaos Theory

Chaos Theory is a little known book by Robert Murphy, who is the author of the PIG to Capitalism, it is just 55 pages and contains two essays by Murphy on the mechanicals of a stateless society.

The essays are on Private Law and Private Defense.

So far I’ve only had time to read the Private Law essay, but I’ll post on the Defense part next week.

In a stateless society everything would be owned privately, by definition, Murphy says that it would be in the interest of everyone who owns property to put in a contract that everyone who enter the property cannot steal, murder, assault anyone, etc. If anyone breaks the contracts they would be subject to a fine, considering the trial of a private court or arbitration firm.
To make sure all the fines would be paid it would be likely that ‘crime’ insurance companies sprang up, and businesses would only allow those with this insurance on their property.

The insurance companies would proceed to only grant policies to those who they believed would not commit crimes (if someone already did commit the insurance company may say we’ll only give you the policy if you stay in a private jail).

I have some objections to this (what’s to stop people from just entering the property without signing a contract, and what about rich people who could just afford the fines) so I’m going to re-read it, but at least form what I now understand its seems logical and plausible.

The Patriot

The Patriot is a story of Benjamin Martin, a character partly based on the “Swamp Fox,” Francis Marion, who is considered the founder of modern Guerilla Warfare.

The movie can be looked at very well from a libertarian perspective. It starts out with Martin’s son joining the Revolutionary army and being taken by the agents of the big British government, who proceed to kill another of his son who runs after the soldiers.

Martin then takes vengeance finding the road on which the British soldiers were and, with two of his younger sons, killing all of the Brits guerilla style and taking his oldest son back.
Martin joins the army and throughout the movie he uses his wits and knowledge of the land to cripple the British Big Government army in his area.

It is important to point out that the Revolutionary army was basically anarchic in the Revolutionary war, there was, as of yet, no government for them to follow. And as Murray Rothbard pointed out if a bunch of farmers and blacksmiths could voluntarily join an army and beat the best army and navy in the world who could possibly take over the whole of Americans, all of which will know their land better than any attacking force.

Quote of the Week

Everyone carries a part of society on his shoulders; no one is relieved of his share of responsibility by others. And no one can find a safe way out for himself if society is sweeping towards destruction. Therefore, everyone, in his own interests, must thrust himself vigorously into the intellectual battle. None can stand aside with unconcern; the interests of everyone hangs on the results. Whether he chooses or not, every man is drawn into the greatest historical struggle, the decisive battle into which our epoch has plunged us.
– Ludwig von Mises

Worst Crime; Keynes; Inclined to Liberty; Stimulus

noreply@blogger.com (Thomas Aquinas) — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 21:03:00 +0000

New Article Layout

I’ve been using a layout for the articles for a while; I thought I’d show what will go into the articles each week, from now on (not in any discernible order):

• Free Speech Board
• Macro Economics Class
• Economic Subject
• Short Book of the Week – Eventually this will just become book of the week
• Libertarian Movie of the Week – This will be a new feature where I examine a current or past movie that has libertarian leanings
• Quote of the Week

Free Speech Board

The question this week was, “What is the worst crime a person can commit?”

There were a bunch of heinous answers, like, “Download music illegally,” or, “Be a member of the Republican party,” along with some obvious ones including molestation, rape and murder.
My opinion?

I believe the worst crime that can be committed is to forcibly steal money from workers, under the penalty of imprisonment or death, and use that money to go half way around the world and murder civilians in a country the majority of the workers could not even point out on a map.

Then again, the State commits or has committed the most heinous crimes imaginable many more times than any one person has.

Macro

I got into a (very) minor scuffle with my Professor today (don’t worry it was all words), when he asked if anyone knew who Maynard was (he was talking about Keynes). Here’s how it went down:

Me – He was a dumb economist.

Prof – DUMB! You can’t get by in this class thinking that.

Me – You were talking about Keynes, right?

Prof – We won’t be talking about anyone dumb in this class. How can you say that? He was named one of the 6 most influential intellectuals of the last century.

Me – By who though?

Prof – Sigh…. Economists.

After that he went back to reviewing for our test. I have a number of points on this:
It’s possible (probable) that I should have held back on my amazingly quick wit, and said, “The guy whose theories prolonged the depression by twenty years,” or, “The guy whose every work was demolished by Austrians, mainly F.A. Hayek and Henry Hazlitt.” Unfortunately in my haste to be the first one to answer the question (in a class where I doubt anyone else had any idea what the hell was going on) I just said, ‘dumb.’

Keynes changed his mind basically every two years, F.A. Hayek destroyed his Treatise on Money to the point that Keynes agreed that it was wrong. Hazlitt wrote a line by line refutation of Keynes’ General Theory. Also, he misstated Say’s Law then proceeded to say it was wrong and base his whole theory on it.

Every single time Keynes’ theories have put into practice bad economic things have transpired.

Finally, Keynes may have had a high IQ or been intelligent in areas other than Economics, but economically he was a fool, and one who has caused many lives to be lost. Calling him a genius, or calling any other wrongheaded idiot a genius for that matter, just distracts from the fact that he was wrong and serves little or no benefit to anyone, what so ever.

Inclined to Liberty

Louis E. Carabini believes there are two types of people in the world: those who wish to live their lives on their own minding their own business and those who wish to rule over other people.

He’s shows in his book that those who say, “No one should be allowed to own a Yacht,” or “CEOs get paid way too much,” or “no one should be allowed to inherit wealth,” are in effect saying, “The government should not allow people to own a yacht,” “The government should not allow people to choose how and when they interact with each other,” and “The government should not allow people to choose how to allocate their wealth.”

Carabini applies this theory to many topics, in the book’s 35 chapters, but only 107 pages. The book can be read in probably an hour or two, but still leaves the reader with much more ammunition with which to fight the crazies than he had before.

Mall Cop

TJ and I ironically both saw Mall Cop on the same weekend, even though we live several states apart and did not communicate about seeing the movie.

The movie was surprisingly good, it stars Kevin James as mall security cop, Paul Blart.
Blart is still in the mall when a group of bad guys take it over and attempt to steal the ATM receipts from all of the stores. Though he is in no way a traditional action hero, Blart manages to use his own form of Guerilla warfare to take out all of the bad guys, except the leader.

At the end of the movie he catches up with the leader at an airport, as he is trying to leave, and it is shown that the S.W.A.T. team leader, who had been interfering with Blart (or at least attempting to) throughout the movie and was a bully to Blart during High School, is in with the bad guys.

It was extremely refreshing to see a movie that did not have the same cliché genius government cops and idiot criminals. When government has a monopoly on defense two things are always bound to happen:

1. Inefficiencies abound because the government has no profit/loss to calculate how and when to spend money. Because of this policemen are not paid what a market rate would be for the risk and skill involved in their profession, so many of them will need to get money on the side.

2. When a government troop goes bad, the only people who can stop him are other government troops. Everything and anything will be done to make the situation less embarrassing to the government.

Stimulus Bull

Robert Murphy has a great analogy for the stimulus:

If an allergic man is stung by a bee what should you do? Give him the freedom to go to the hospital and give him some a Benadryl or hold him down on the ground, don’t let him move, and take blood out of his leg and inject it into his arm?

The reason we are in a depression and have inflation above 16% is because government screwed around with the money supply in 2002. Right now the market needs to be free to go through a recession to get rid of all the mal investment made because of the false interest rates.

This is not what is happening, instead the government is propping up all the failing companies, the crappy companies that the market needs to kill and then redistributing money to try to ‘stimulate’ the economy.

At a time when more savings is desperately needed in a country with a negative savings rate, the government is taking the money away from those who save the most and redistributing it to those who will just spend it, thinking this will somehow help the economy.

God help us.

Quote of the Week

When the government fears the people, it is liberty. When the people fear the government, it is tyranny.

– Thomas Paine

Thomas Aquinas is the pseudonym of a free-market loving college student located in Salt Lake City, Utah.

Don't Get Excited Over House Republicans Unity

noreply@blogger.com (Agent Madison) — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 18:08:00 +0000

By TJ Madison

All I've been hearing on talk radio the last few days is how great the House Republicans are, because none of them voted for the so-called "stimulus package" proposed by Barack Obama.

I can guarantee it that if John McCain had won the presidency and proposed a very similar bill in Congress, most of the House Republicans would have voted for it.

And how do I know that? Because approximately 99% of those Republicans were in the House of Representatives at the same time George W. Bush was signing bills that called for extravagant levels of spending the past eight years.

What!? Do You actually think that all Republicans in the House had a sudden attack of 'common sense' and 'frugality' at the same time? Don't get me wrong, I want this 'stimulus bill' to fail, but if you can't see this as mostly political posturing, you're just a shill for the Republican Party.

There is only a handful of 'Ron Paul Republicans' in the House that are still purveyors of constitutional-limited government. Most of the Republicans consider themselves conservative when they want to get re-elected; other's are just RINO's (Republican in name only) mainly from the northeastern part of the country.

Even as I consider myself Republican, I would probably give more credit to the eleven Democrat members of the House who voted against the bloated stimulus package. It took a lot more 'marbles' for a Democrat to vote against Barack Obama than any Republican.

I hope I'm not the only person on the Right to be cynical about the House Republicans. I'm going to need more than just one vote opposing the "worst piece of legislation in the history of the universe".

As for the Senate, they have yet to pass their version of the bill, but you can bet that the the Republicans in that body of government will vote about the same as the House Republicans. They won't get 100% of Republican Senators to vote against Obama and the stimulus package, but most Republicans will vote against it, and we on the Right will praise them, too. Conveniently forgetting they're the same Republicans that voted in favor of socialism over capitalism the last eight years.

Is this news? Maybe not, but it's very disturbing to me that capitalism has taken such a big blow under a Republican administration. I realize that no Republican administration in the last century has been ideologically 'pure' when it comes to free markets, but I never thought that it would be a Republican president who thought it be best to "abandon capitalism in order to save capitalism".

Honestly ask yourself this: why now do the House and Senate Republicans think this stimulus bill (and government in general) are too big? Is it because it's a Democrat proposal? Or is it because they've 'magically' remembered that they're supposed to be the defenders of capitalism, and not the enemy?

TJ Madison is a pundit living in Fond du Lac, WI. He works in the health-care industry and fights 'creeping socialism' on a daily basis. He hopes this criticism of Republicans will score some points with his blogging partner, Thomas Aquinas.

Macro; Protectionism; Abortion; Hazlitt

noreply@blogger.com (Thomas Aquinas) — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 09:21:00 +0000

Macro Economics & The Free Speech Board

I’m enrolled in Macro Economics this term, from what I’ve heard the professors at my school are overwhelmingly Keynesians; the very separation of Macro Economics from Micro Economics is contrary to the Austrian School, with which I place myself, so this semester I will be posting, each week, what I learned in the class and whether I agree with it or not.

The Free Speech board has, unfortunately, only had ‘how to get better’ topics so far this year, hopefully nest week I can post about it again.

Protectionism

One of the biggest challenges I’ve faced while debating about libertarianism is related to protectionism, which basically means stopping other countries from trading with the US or stopping US companies from exporting jobs out of the US.

The biggest arguments for this, which are related, are:

Americans will lose jobs
This is a first level problem; that is, it is a problem with people only looking at the first level of the situation, but not looking further.

When jobs are exported or companies lose business as a result of foreign competition Americans will likely lose jobs, that’s how it works. However, it does not just stop there, the people don’t lose their jobs and then go live on the street and starve to death, while all other variables stay the same; the world is not just some senseless Twilight Zone episode.

After these jobs are transferred overseas Americans are allowed to move into jobs which make more economic sense (because the wages are bidding their scarce labor into them) and they probably prefer (if they liked their old job enough they would have taken a lower wage).

Also, the moving of these jobs increases the specialization and division of labor; it is similar to someone moving up the ranks in a company. Just as it would be possible and more efficient for a CEO (one who worked his way up from the bottom) to do a job in the factory, but it is too expensive and nonsensical for him to do this job when he would do a lot better running the company, it would be possible for Americans to do certain jobs but it makes more sense for those jobs to be allocated elsewhere.

Dumping

While the first argument is for stopping American companies from sending jobs out of America, the second is for instituting tariffs to keep foreign companies out of American markets (which in turn force the loss of American jobs).
It is an extremely fallacious argument to contend that it would be bad foreign companies to compete at all with American companies. Competition is the reason the free markets works well, consumers choose which ever product they feel is best suited to their needs, if that product is made by a foreign company, then so be it.

The argument with dumping is that a foreign company (supported by the government or not) will sell goods to American consumers at less than cost to gain market share, and then raise the price to levels unaffordable to Americans.

This should take, at most, a few minutes of thought before the argument is tossed away. The company in question would need to drop prices so low to completely push all other competitors out of business that not only would it be likely to ever happen, but it would take years to gain the money back, during that time there is nothing stopping the old competitors from coming back or new entrepreneurs from entering the business and competing with the dumping company. Also, I find it hard to believe a company could sustain while losing this much money to push competitors out of business.

Even if dumping did work and happened how could it logically be stopped? There is no real possible way to find the cost a company has in making something, its future goals and how it decided on its price.

Abortion

During the past few weeks I have been struggling to reconcile my beliefs against abortion and its legality with anarchism.

At first I thought there’s no way abortion can be illegal, a baby can be an unwanted presence who is an invasion and a parasite. Though many pro-lifers will deny this statement, it is technically true (in some cases, when the mother does not want the baby) and it is extremely not useful to take one sheltered look at something, without considering the other side of the argument.

If a bum walked onto someone property and stole his food and refused to leave, in libertarianism, it would be within someone’s rights to kill that man, or at the very least make him leave, which could possibly result in his death.

How then can the illegality of abortion be justified?

Let’s go back to the bum, what if the owner of the property had forced him onto the property and he had no way to escape? It would then not be legal for the owner to kill the bum.
In the same vein it should be illegal for a woman to kill the baby who she and her partner have created.

Economics in One Lesson

This book, by Henry Hazlitt, is perhaps the most prolific in leading people into the Austrian School. Hazlitt was not an economist as much as he was a journalist; he edited Mises’ Human Action and also wrote a book, The Failure of the New Economics, which refuted Keynes’ General Theory line by line.

In this book Hazlitt uses his ‘one lesson,’ which is, in a policy, to look at every outcome for all groups of people, not just the immediate outcome for one group. He then proceeds to apply it to all the popular policies of the day, which coincidentally are all pretty popular today as well.
Hazlitt’s book holds up very well today, and is a great way to introduce the free-market economics which are usually contrary to what one first thinks about policies. Plus the book is less than 200 pages long so it can be read in a couple of days or weeks, even by the busy libertarian.

Quote of the Week

It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.
– Thomas Jefferson

Dictatorial Impulses

noreply@blogger.com (Agent Madison) — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 16:52:00 +0000

By TJ Madison

When I first heard about Barack Obama's executive orders in his first few days as president, I really wasn't surprised. Although, five in three days is unprecedented, leftists will tell you it's necessary because "we live in unprecedented times."

Unprecedented times? I remember my mother and I driving to two consecutive gas stations in the late 1970's, only to be told by the attendant: "Sorry, we're out of gasoline!"

Having no gas for your car-- now that's unprecedented.

The energy policies of Jimmy Carter scarred my mother for life. Even to this day, whenever I get in her car, the gas tank is on 'E'. She's still afraid to go to gas stations.

Getting back to executive orders, you know damn well that if George W. Bush would have signed five in three days, Democrats would be screaming, "look at that tyrant, who does he think he is?"

Of the five presidents before B.O., executive orders went as follows: Bush '43' had zero in his first nine days. Caligula, better known as Bill Clinton, signed two in his first five days. Bush '41' did not sign any in his first five days. Reagan went seven days before issuing any and Carter, the worthless one, issued only one in his first ten days. Now, I'm not sure what you can take from these facts, but one thing is for certain, of all of the last six presidents, B.O. appears to be the one most ambitious to make a power grab in his first few days in office.

Now to be fair, executive orders have been in existence since 1789. However, in the nineteenth century; for a president to issue even thirty in his entire term was unusual. It wasn't until the twentieth century that pure dictatorial power of the executive went far more reaching then any Founding Father could have intended. The truth is, executive orders can have legitimate functions. Presidents can carry out their constitutional duties or direct their subordinates by executive order. But they can also be source of temptation for overly-ambitious presidents (who can that be?), by using them as a substitute for formal legislation. Thereby circumventing the constitutional process.

But, if you're Saint Barack of Chicago, the constitution doesn't apply to you anyhow. Just like it didn't apply to one of your hero's, FDR. Who carried out 3700+ executive orders! To put that into perspective, Bush II signed 282, Caligula had 364 and Reagan 381 in their eight year terms. Jimmy Carter managed 320 in only 4 years!

I will not defend any of these men when it comes to executive orders; they are all guilty of usurping power from the other branches of government. But, Barack Obama is heading towards the dictator status of FDR when it comes to abuse of power.

Now, when it comes to current controversial laws, you can easily make a legitimate case to say the Patriot Act is unconstitutional, to which I agree. However, at least it went through the legislative process.

Point being, by signing an exorbitant amount of executive orders, a president becomes a government unto himself, bypassing all the checks and balances of a representative-republic form of government.

TJ Madison is a libertarian-Republican pundit living in Fond du Lac, WI. His day job is working in the health-care industry. The preceding column is solely the thoughts of TJ Madison, and not necessarily that of anarchist, Thomas Aquinas or any other contributors to AgentsofLiberty.com.

Is Saying 'God' Now Unconstitutional?

noreply@blogger.com (Agent Madison) — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 20:44:00 +0000

By, TJ Madison

Here we are one week from the Presidential Inauguration, and I find it humorous what people will find time to get worked up about.

"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States... So help me God."

Now, if you were an intelligent American, is there any possible way, you could have a problem with any of the words in the Presidential Oath?

Well, they found an idiot that does.

With everything that's going on in this country right now, trillion dollar deficits, a war on two fronts and a long recession ahead of us, there's an atheist activist, Michael Nenow, that has made it it his own personal crusade to remove the words, "So help me God", from the January 20th inauguration of Barack Hussein Obama. A U.S. District Court Judge will actually hear this frivolous lawsuit next week.

If anything, some American should sue the President-elect, citing that his campaign promises are a direct contrast of that entire Oath. Every promise Obama has made about education, health-care, the environment and several others are, by definition, unconstitutional.

I challenge any leftist to find the words: education, health-care or the environment in the Constitution. And when you can't find them, refer to the Tenth Amendment, "...powers that the Constitution did not delegate to the United States or prohibit to the states were reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Nenow's ultimate goal, of course, is to rid the entire public square of all things religious. While citing the 'separation of Church and state' mantra, so frequently used by the godless socialists of the left; a mantra that is not in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence or any other important historical document.

For the record, even though I do not attend church regularly, I strongly believe in God, and I don't have any problem with atheists-- as long as they have a love for individual liberty and free markets.

Groups like the American Civil Liberties Union have a lot of card-carrying members in the libertarian movement and that's fine. Though I will never understand why, seeing that the ACLU is a fraud and is no friend of liberty. Those libertarians may see it a little different however, they choose to ignore the nation our Founders wanted.

It is clear that the Founders did not want a Theocracy. However, by ACLU 'standards' of today, the Declaration of Independence could never had been ratified in it's current form with a word like 'Creator' included.

In fact, every session of Congress begins with a prayer by a preacher, who has been financially compensated by the taxpayer since 1777. So ask yourself this: if the Men who actually wrote the Constitution didn't have a problem with a paid preacher, why in the world would it be deemed unconstitutional to utter the words 'So help me God' in an inauguration?

It's not unconstitutional. It's just ridiculous and petty, like the entire leftist movement.

TJ Madison is a libertarian-Republican pundit living in Fond du Lac, WI. The views are his own, and not necessarily those of all contributors at AgentsOfLiberty.com

My Case for Anarchy

noreply@blogger.com (Thomas Aquinas) — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 06:34:00 +0000

I received this e-mail from TJ:
________

TJ Madison to me show details 7:09 AM (15 hours ago) Reply

I had an idea for you to include in your next article.

I thought you could expand on your anarchism. I believe most people have an ignorant idea of anarchy, and maybe you can explain that it's more than just lawless teenagers with bones in their nose and purple Mohawks.

Just throwing it out there.

--
tj2
Stop Creeping Socialism
http://agentsofliberty.com/

________

I am against the idea of purple Mohawks (on a purely aesthetic basis) so I thought I’d take an extra day, make this an extra-long article, and show why I believe in anarcho-capitalism. I like to separate this into two areas in my head, which I’ll call economical and moral in this article.

My Economic Reasoning

Before I begin I’d like to point out that I’m not near intelligent enough to come up with this stuff on my own, even though it may seem that way with my potentially poor explanation, and I will give some further reading at the end of this section or those who wish to see my sources and explore these theories deeper.

To start I need to explain the profit/loss measuring stick used by entrepreneurs. In a free market prices are used to dictate where scarce resources (any resource that is) are allocated, this happens when people who demand the resource more pay more for it (the resource is then allocated to those people). Through the chaos of a free-market and millions of transactions prices do a magnificent job of allocating resources to their best use, somehow in the end there is order and there are an extremely small amount of shortages, because when the demand for a certain good goes up, the price follows and as entrepreneurs are encouraged to find better ways to find the materials, or even enter the business, the higher price allows the producer to pay more for his necessary materials which allocates them away from other areas. This happens every second of the day as the market adjusts.

Because prices dictate where scarce resources need to be allocated entrepreneurs have a very easy measuring stick as to whether the market thinks the resources should be allocated in the ways they are using, this is profit and loss. If an entrepreneur is operating with a profit it means the market wants the resources to be allocated to that use, if not the then the market thinks there is a better use, and without any government intervention it just about always eventually diverts to that use (because the entrepreneur is losing money).

Before I go on here's a summary of the above: Because resources are scarce those who demand them the most pay higher prices, those higher price allows the market to allocate the resources in the best way, following this entrepreneurs will know how the resources should be allocated by their profit or loss.

The great economist Ludwig von Mises came up with the Calculation Problem Argument that said, basically, without this profit or loss measuring stick anything operating without the use of prices has no way of knowing if what they are doing is actually working.

Before going further it is necessary that the readers acknowledge that government does not operate on a profit/loss system if some area of government needs more money they give it more money through inflation of taxation, other than these two sins government has no way of getting money.

As a result of the two things in the preceding paragraphs government logically does not and literally cannot work in any way.

This does not mean there should only be government roads or defense or courts, it means that government cannot work in any way.

Moral Reasoning

Libertarianism is essentially a connecting of two things: a non-aggression axiom and property rights.

The non-aggression axiom says it is fundamentally wrong for anyone to initiate force; it is basically the Golden Rule and is a must in basically any religion.

Property rights say that every man has a right to his property, property being something with which one has mixed his labor or for which he has traded. “Thou shalt not steal,” covers this in my book.

As with the economic reasoning this logically must be taken as an absolute (for the Jews or Christians there is not a footnote after the ten commandments, explaining when to use them, they are to be used at all times).

Now, remember the two ways government can sustain itself: inflation and taxation, let’s explore these two.

First, inflation, inflation is the increasing of the money supply (many people think inflation is rising prices, this is the result of inflation, not the definition). The increasing of the money supply is essentially counterfeiting (regardless of who does it). Because this allows some people to get something for nothing I am morally against any form of inflation, and in fact believe that the abolishing of the federal reserve and return to a commodity money is what should be done, but that’s for a different article.

Second, is taxation, taxation is basically a fancy word for theft; it is the forceful taking of money. If you think there is no force involved, try not paying your taxes.

Now, combining: the fact that the only way the government can get money is by stealing, either through direct taxation or inflation, with the necessary absolutism of bringing together a non-aggression axiom with property rights in every single case it is morally impermissible for a government to exist. Even if government did somehow work economically I would still be morally against it for these reasons.

Many people simply do not take this moral argument to mind when they think about government or anarchism, the next time you think about how good the national defense is or about how good it is to have welfare, then ponder if you think it is OK that this was done, by definition, through the forceful stealing of someone else’s hard-earned money.

Conclusion

In conclusion if I have not converted you to my way of thinking I at least hope you no longer may think I am not just a lawless teenager with a purple Mohawk and a bone in my nose (well an extra one).

Further

Most of the reading I have done in this subject was done with printed articles whose links were subsequently lost, here are some of the things that survived, even if it isn’t as comprehensive as I would have liked.

Site Updates

I’ve changed the appearance of the main site. I tried to make it look cleaner and changed the positioning of some aspects.
With the update I created a new poll which asks the reader’s take on anarchy after taking in my arguments, please vote in the poll and then comment on this article with your take.
Also, the short book series will be back next week as my next recommended book goes along with the upcoming economic topic.

Quote of the Week

“On the free market, everyone earns according to his productive value in satisfying consumer desires. Under statist distribution, everyone earns in proportion to the amount he can plunder from the producers."
-Murray Rothbard

New Years Resolution: How About More Liberty!

noreply@blogger.com (Agent Madison) — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 21:37:00 +0000

By, TJ Madison

My father was right.

As long as I can remember, My Dad (Pops Racer) always made sure he went to bed BEFORE midnight on New Year's eve. It was his way of letting us know that it was a waste of time to stay up, just to see the calender change to January. One could chalk it up to spite, but actually, for as long as I can remember, he's never been up past ten o'clock on any other day of the year, so why should New Years Eve be any different?

Because! It was New Years Eve! The calender is no-longer going to say 2008 anymore. It will be 2009 now! Can't you see how exiting that is?

It took me about 35 years into my life, but now I know how 'lame' those statements really are.

I think it still could be exciting for a teenager to stay up, waiting for the countdown until midnight with their siblings. It's sort of like believing in Santa Claus when you're a child. When you get in your 20's, it's just another reason to drink and be stupid. Like people in their 20's need another reason to drink and be stupid, they already have St. Patrick's Day, their birthday, all their friend's birthdays, and every Friday and Saturday night of the year.

That's at least 120 days per year to get drunk and act stupid. And if you're attending a major university, you can double that number of the times to be drunk and stupid; or as Pops Racer would say: P.U.D. (pissed-up drunk).

I'm not sure how Pops felt about New Year's resolutions, though. I imagine it would be the same as what he thought about New Year's in general. And if that is so, then he would be proud of me for not bothering with New Year's resolutions. Because when has one ever been kept? For me, never. So I stopped making them about five years ago.

I think the best I ever did was to avoid mayonnaise until the middle of February. And if you knew me, you'd realize what an accomplishment that really was. However, I've now discovered that totally depriving yourself of something you enjoy is foolish. Do I use the same amount of mayo that I used to? No. I learned to make a sandwich taste just fine with a little bit. Let's just say, that when I die, the cause of death will not be 'too much' mayonnaise!

Let me say one more thing on the subject: It's OK to have a resolution to improve your life, but why do you have to wait until the beginning of a new year? It's just as easy to start at the beginning of a week, or the first of any month. Because when your current New Year's resolution fizzles out January 22, don't wait until January 1st of 2010 to make an improvement to your life, try again February 1st.

All of that being said, I'm going to make some resolutions, not for me, but for my fellow citizens and co-workers.

Why? Because I'm sick of the 'nanny-state' politics that are devouring our precious individual liberties in every corner of this great land. For example, even smaller cities and towns are turning to more and more government intrusion on personal freedom. In big cities it has already been lost: no smoking, no trans-fats, no driving with cell phones, no driving without seat belts, random 'checkpoints' by the police for drunk drivers and so on.

I'm actually able to listen to Chicago radio stations in my small Wisconsin city, while listening to the traffic report one of the highways had a back up of a couple of miles. No big deal, right? It is Chicago after all. Well, the back up of cars was created by a police checkpoint to-- wait for this-- make sure drivers had their seat belts on!

What the bigger cities of America have succumb to, is indeed frighting, however, more scary, it's coming to our smaller towns and cities. Brought to you mainly by leftist do-gooders who can't mind their own business. I know this because, I work with people like this, and people sit on our Common Council who want this tyranny.

Now, people in our city lost the freedom to smoke in restaurants three years ago. In 2008, the local people lost the freedom to smoke in bars and taverns.

Yes, bars and taverns! Aren't bars generally 'seedy' type places where certain people can go to fulfill some of their elementary vices, such as drinking, smoking, maybe a fling with someone you just met, among other things.

So let me get this straight, you're now able to go to a bar of your choice, drink alcohol and destroy your liver, eat a cholesterol filled pizza that clogs your arteries, take a girl home (that you just met) and possibly end up with several disease's, and gamble a sizable portion of your paycheck. BUT, GOD FORBID, you should leave the establishment with a trace of 'second-hand' smoke in your system. A choice you made before going in there. (For the record: this writer thinks the affects of 'second-hand' smoke are greatly exaggerated for political purposes. And even if I'm wrong about that, nobody puts a gun to your head to go into a bar).

So in 2009, if you have any power to make laws, or persuade lawmakers, make a New Years resolution to side with individual liberty before siding with the majority that wish to take it away.

TJ Madison is a pundit living in Fond du Lac, WI. He describes his views as a libertarian-Republican who is fighting creeping socialism on a daily basis.

socialist Bush; I'm an Anarchist; Speculators; Short Book

noreply@blogger.com (Thomas Aquinas) — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 05:51:00 +0000

It's about Friggin' Time!

The Washington Times is reporting that the RNC will accuse Bush of embracing socialism.

A member even said, "We can't be a party of small government, free markets and low taxes while supporting bailouts and nationalizing industries, which lead to big government, socialism and high taxes at the expense of individual liberty and freedoms."

While its news to me that the Republican party is one of small government, free markets and low taxes, this is a very good revelation, hopefully it will lead to a more libertarian-Republican party in the future.

I am an Anarchist

I've been putting off this decision for a while, but after a bunch of reading over the break, I've severed any theories I'd had concerning good government, or at least necessary government, in any area, and now consider myself an Anarcho-Capitalist, in the tradition of Murray Rothbard. For more on Anarcho-Capitalism, see this: this

Previously, I was a minarchist, which is what TJ is, meaning I believe in very minimal government, only in the form of courts, and defense (police and military), but I now believe that is not very reasonable; if it is bad for the government to have a monopoly in any place it is bad in all places, the same principle applies to everything.

Speculators

This subject probably would have been more interesting a few months ago, but I'm running short on Economic topics I haven't already covered, so I'll post about it today.

By speculator I mean the type of entrepreneur who tries to gain by speculating in the future price of something, usually a commodity. Speculators are typically scorned by the media, usually because they make money for 'nothing,' (maybe a not-so-surprising event was all the right-wing talking heads teaming up against the Oil speculators this summer; and I thought they were pro-Capitalism).

However, speculators provide a huge service in the market; since I'm from the mid-west I'll use corn as an example.

Say there is Wisconsin farmer toiling through the spring planting all of his seeds for the corn, all the while worrying about the future price and losing sleep over it. Along comes a speculator who offers him $5 per bushel (not accurate) for all the corn he grows, speculating that it will be higher. The farmer considers it and takes the offer signing a contract in April.

As fall comes closer the price of corn varies widely on speculation that ethanol funding will be stopped or weather will be better than usual, but the farmer does not need to worry about it, because he has a set price, it is also likely the speculator does not because he may have a more diversified portfolio than the farmer could have managed.

Finally, Fall comes and three situations can occur:

The price is lower than $5 per bushel in which case the farmer has been saved the trouble of selling all his corn at unprofitable prices, while the speculator probably makes up for the loss in other areas.
The price stays the same and neither party seemingly cares, but the farmer was saved a lot of restless nights knowing he wouldn't have to worry about the price.
This is the outcome which stirs up the most controversy, the price of corn is higher than $5 per bushel. Many farmers will probably go to the media which will cry about how the speculator 'stole' this profit from the 'poor' farmer (for some reason no one ever talks about the 'poor' speculator who had his money 'stolen' by a farmer when the price ends up lower). Many, unknowledgable and likely unintelligent, will even accuse the speculator of somehow manipulating the prices, as if that were possible. In reality, the Speculator is shouldering all the risk and his profit is easily justified.

Quote of the Week

"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the the world of fools." ~Herbert Spencer

Short Books, number one Concise Guide to Economics

By definition libertarians are geared more towards work than laziness, because of this not many of them have a lot of time to read a thousand pages per week.

I've decided to start a series, where each week I'll review a great and short (less than 200 pages) book, these will all be on economics, history or politics in some way.

The Concise Guide to Economics

The book is 119 pages, has 37 chapters and was written by Jim Cox, who is an associate professor of economics and political science at Georgia Perimeter College. The book is currently in its third edition.

Cox said in the introduction that his aim with the book is to allow people to grasp free-market economics with very little effort, the book accomplishes this to a great extent.

Though I felt I had a lot of knowledge on all the non-Keynesian stuff (it isn't pro-Keynes, it refutes it), the book showed me arguments I had never though of and cemented my knowledge in many key topics.

Its format also makes it great for future reference, in prepping for the Speculation paragraphs above, I just flipped the book open found the chapter, and read it in two minutes (all the chapters are between 1-4 pages long usually about 2.5, I read the whole book in about two hours).

Finally, Cox includes 5 or more references to longer books on each subject. I consider this book a necessary possession for anyone serious about debating economics maters.

Aquinas is massively enjoying his vacation of reading and non-stop logic relative to the socialist college where he refines his debating skills daily.

Obama U-Turn

noreply@blogger.com (Agent Madison) — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 18:35:00 +0000

By, TJ Madison

Have you ever seen a bigger '180' in politics, in such a short time?

I'm talking about Barack Hussein's complete makeover after his November 4th election win. Before the presidential election, B. Hussein was all about 'hope and change', 'change and hope'. If he could find another way to say those two words, he would have. He made it sound like we would all be living in paradise, only if he were elected. However, elect the 'other' guy, and America would keep heading down the path of total destruction.

B. Hussein was usually seen with that big smile or a slightly more serious look, when giving one of his 'positive' speeches.

Fast forward six weeks to today. Almost every appearance B. Hussein makes, there's a somber mood and a sour look on his face. Mr. 'hope and change' morphed into Mr. 'fear and hopelessness'. For someone who raised the bar higher than any other politician in recent memory, I've never seen a president lower the bar for himself, before even taking office, as much as he has.

During the campaign, which wasn't that long ago, Hussein was promising immediate good times on January 20th. If he were elected, I was under the impression that we would have 'full' employment, 95% of Americans would get a tax break, and every other nation in the world would 'love' us; thus not needing to pay for a military anymore.

With the money saved, children could go to school immediately after coming out of the womb, everybody would have 100% health care coverage, the government would fill your gas tank up and make your mortgage payment for you.

Guess what? He's still four weeks from talking office, and I think reality is starting to set in.

Or did he already know he wasn't going to be able to do all that crap he talked about, but just decided to say it anyway, as a 'pander' to the ignorant voters who just love to eat up phony promises?

Honestly, I think 85% was his big ego, while the other 15% was promises he knew he couldn't keep.

Democrats have made the same old promises including: middle-class tax cuts, national health care, raising minimum wages and so on. What made it different this time, was that people may have actually thought they were electing 'God' himself. Only because B. Hussein could speak well, and someone this eloquent couldn't possibly be your average scummy politician, could they?

As for the former, Barack probably thought he was the 'Second Coming', the great 'Community Organizer' or the neo-Authoritarian that thought collectivism didn't work because a great man like himself wasn't 'in charge' of it. That's how a political narcissist thinks; socialism could work, if only the 'right' person was running the show.

America doesn't need another FDR, it needs another Thomas Jefferson.

TJ Madison is a pundit living in Fond du Lac, WI. He works in the health care industry and fights 'creeping socialism' in his spare time.

Updated Books; Quote; Ayn Rand

noreply@blogger.com (Thomas Aquinas) — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 04:20:00 +0000

Updated Book Store

Just in time for Christmas and the new year I've updated the book store

I've added more sections and consolidated the book titles to only those we endorse.

You can now find great books on, Economics, History, Politics, Philosophy, Religion and Foreign Policy. Plus works of Fiction, Movies and Music.

Free Speech Board

This is the last week of the semester so the question was not updated, but after having a discussion with TJ this weekend, I've decided to comment on the question.

The questions was: "When is civil disobedience OK?"

I originally thought the question was just a HIPPIE thing, but I've come to resent its wording.

The definition of disobedience is: "Lack of obedience or refusal to comply; disregard or transgression," and "civil disobedience," is taken to mean disobeying the government.

My common sense answer to this question is, 100% of the time. This is not including aggression.

My thoughts are this (I know an unusual amount of statement then colon in this section, I'll quit soon): any laws government makes (other than against aggression) are by definition taking away liberty, thus the question should have been: "When are Government Laws OK?"

Quote of the Week

"There is simply no other choice than this: either to abstain from interference in the free play of the market, or to delegate the entire management of production and distribution to the government. Either capitalism or socialism: there exists no middle way."

-Ludwig von Mises

Ayn Rand

I've been putting off writing about Ayn Rand's three main fiction books for a while, I don't have a lot of topics about which to write this week because of the short time in between articles, so I'll write about them now, in the order of my rankings of the three.

Atlas Shrugged

Story

Dagny Taggart is the heroine of the story, she is the Vice President of Taggart Transcontinental Railroad.

She is given the task of making the railroad survive during an economic depression. As she tries to do this a 'destroyer,' is roaming the country convincing all the captains of industry to disappear.

As all the people who run the best companies continue to disappear the economy starts to crash and Taggart struggles to run her company as more and more socialistic government laws are placed on the economy.

My Thoughts

I have not read the Bible in whole, so thus far Atlas Shrugged is my favorite book. There is no close competitor.

Nearly every story in existence preaches the goodness of self sacrifice, Atlas Shrugged shows how self-interest is logical and necessary. As every other book demonizes business and attempts to show government as a protector, Atlas Shrugged shows how the great businessmen are the producers in the economy and the government is the demon.

The book has the easily the best story I have ever read and although it is over 1,200 pages long I could not put it down and read it in just over three days. This book is a must read for literally everyone.

Anthem

Story

Sometime in the future the world has become so collectivized that the word 'I,' no longer even exists in the vocabulary, it has been replaced with 'we.'

In the dystopia created by collectivism all the progresses of the past are lost and the people spend all day working in the jobs chosen for them, many of these farming. There is no electricity and little technology of any sort.

The hero of the book, Equality 7-2521, finds a cave underground where there are remnants of old material, there he rediscovers electricity and creates a primitive light bulb, rejoicing in the fact that he has helped society.

But, when he shows it to the creative council they cast him out, because unless all men have thought of something it is necessarily bad. Equality eventually escapes with a woman he has fallen in love with and lives the rest of his life in the forest next to the city.

My Thoughts

This book is every bit as good as the more popular 1984, and carries more valuable lessons.

It is only 105 pages long and I read it strait through in about an hour and a half, after wards I had a great motivation to work and just create something for about a month.

This book is not as much of a must read, but I'd recommend it for anyone flights or for those with middle to high school aged kids or nephews/nieces etc.

The Fountainhead

Story

Howard Roark is an independent thinking architect, he refuses to go along with the norm.

As a result his life has a lot of ups and downs, but he never compromises on his independence.

In the climax he blows up the living complex he had designed, but was not built ot his specification.

My Thoughts

The Fountainhead is a good book, but I did not like it nearly as much as the first two.

Much of the book was about art, which is a subject I don't find very interesting, combine that with some very dry parts and you get the short summary I wrote above.

I would recommend it for thos einterested in art of just with a lot of reading time and want to read about individuality.

Thomas Aquinas is a college student who takes refuge in great books when his world becomes to inconceivable to make sense.

'Hostile Takeover'; Bailout again; Christmas; Russ Roberts

noreply@blogger.com (Thomas Aquinas) — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 20:16:00 +0000

I missed last week's post as I temporarily became obsessed with a four book series, and I read 2,700 pages in about seven days. I literally could not put down the books if I wasn't sleeping, working or going to class. So this week my post will be a little longer than usual.

A Hostile takeover is not a logical or intelligent name

First, Investopedia calls a Hostile Takeover:

A takeover attempt that is strongly resisted by the target firm.

Alright, I'm going to assume they mean management by the 'target firm.'

Also, it is so far impossible to force people to sell their shares of a company, so a takeover is, by definition, never hostile to the owners. If it was they would not choose to sell their shares.

So, combining those two points, if owners choose to sell their shares when the management of the company is resisting the buyout, the management is either crappy, or the bid is high enough to make it worth the shareholders while, regardless of which applies it is better for the owner's of the company, that is, those who really matter.

Free Speech Board

This week's question was, "When is Civil Disobedience OK," I do not really have an opinion on this so I didn't read any of the answers.

Stop the Bailouts, Part 1

In a free market the only gauge entrepreneurs have as to whether consumers like a product and want scarce resources to be devoted to its production is Profit/Loss.

When a company has a profit it means consumers are willing to pay for the allocation of that resource, when it has a loss it means they don't.

Without this ability there is no way to see where people really want and need resources, when the government overrides prices and props up a losing company resources get allocated incorrectly (the USSR famously had too much machinery and not enough working factories in one part of its country, and too many factories with no machinery in another part).

Quote of the Week

"Democracy is a form of worship. It is the worship of jackals by jackasses."
-H.L. Mencken

Christmas Presents

With two weeks left before Christmas I've decided to add a little recommendation section for some last minute Christmas presents that can be bought from Amazon. Also, we get a 5% commission on everything purchased that will go towards the hosting costs.

History

The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History - The first book I read by a libertarian author, Thomas E. Woods massacres any and all of the myths about big government in American History.

Hamilton's Curse - I haven't read this book, but I did read DiLorenzo's How Capitalism Saved America, which was very good, and haven't read a negative review on it yet.

Economics

Economics in One Lesson - Hazlitt takes on all of the economic stupidity of his day (the fifties) and shows how using one basic rule (look past step one) all of them can be derailed, most of them still apply today and I believe this is one of if not the best introductory Economics books.

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism - This was the book that started me down the slope into libertarianism. As Woods did in his 'PIG' Robert Murphy destroys all the big government myths about Economics, and on the way recommends countless worthy books and uses only concrete logic.

Fiction

The Invisible Heart: An Economic Romance - See Russ Roberts books below.

Twilight (The Twilight Saga, Book 1) - This books series was one that killed my free time last week. There is little to no politics in the book, but for those who like good stories combined with romance I haven't read anything that can beat it. Also, it's only $6 on Amazon so if you buy it and don't like it's not a big deal.

Stop the Bailouts, Part 2

Many people say GM needs to be bailed out because it employs so many people, but as Briggs Armstrong pointed out 12 companies have more employees than GM and Wal-Mart has seven times as many.

Do we have to bail all of these companies out as well?

Can you name one liberal who would want to bail out non-union Wal-Mart instead of GM?

Russ Roberts Books

I read these books a while ago, but had to do a report on one for one of my classes so I've waited until now to post on them.

The Price of Everything: A Parable of Possibility and Prosperity

This is Roberts' most recent book, it tells the story of a college student who plans a protest against a big Corporation who doubled its prices in the aftermath of an airplane and the professor who talked him out of protesting in his graduation speech.

The Invisible Heart

My favorite of his books, it's about two teachers, one Economics and one English. The English is decidedly leftist and the Economics courts her with political debates.

The Choice: A Fable of Free Trade and Protection (3rd Edition)

The Choice is not as good as the other two, it centers around 18th century British Economist David Ricardo visiting a business owner who is lobbying for protectionist legislation and showing how protectionism does not work.

Stop the Bailout, Part 3

The bailout is socialism, this has no legitimate argument against it.

One need only look at Russia, China, Cuba, North Korea, Chicago, etc. to see how badly socialism has failed, and the lives it has taken.

THERE HAS BEEN PURE SOCIALISM

Many unintelligent defenders of socialism (which is very redundant, I know) claim there is no way to know if pure socialism would actually work because it has never existed totally without a leader screwing it up.

This is untrue, from 1917 to 1921 it existed in this form in the USSR, after just this little time the death rate from starvation (in a country where its previous problem had been how to dispose of its food surplus) that Lenin was forced to introduce prices until 1927, when he took back control with socialism.

Thomas Aquinas is the aka for a college student living in Salt Lake City, Utah. He deals with the economic incompetence of his fellows by reading constantly, and recommends that to others who have to deal with idiocy.

Appointing Clinton 'LEFT'overs

noreply@blogger.com (Agent Madison) — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 17:23:00 +0000

TJ Madison

During the primaries, a hippie Democrat co-worker told me that , "I'm voting for Obama, because I don't want anyone named Clinton or Bush in the White House." I did agree with him about not wanting anybody named Clinton or Bush, but I couldn't agree to vote for an even bigger socialist than either of those two.

With that being his top reason to vote for Barack Hussein, I wonder what he thinks about the appointments that have been made already for an Obama administration? Sure, the name Clinton is not the President, however, she (Hillary Clinton) has been chosen by Hussein to be his Secretary of State; the biggest appointment after VP. I'm only bringing this up because Hussein was supposed to be a new, fresh and different politician on the block. It wasn't going to be politics as usual.

Now, those of us who don't drink the Democrat Kool-Aid, already knew Hussein wasn't going to be any different then any other past politicians in recent memory. It didn't take a genius to see how he got to the top of the Democratic Party.

As much as people would like to think Hussein is the 'Second Coming', I have news for you: he's just another bull sh*t artist. This 'nice guy' started his political career by getting his opponents kicked off the ballot in Illinois. As a lawyer, he sued Citibank to get them to lower standards for handing out mortgages to blacks.

And what was one of the major reasons for the recent American Banking crisis? Banks making it 'easier' for lower income people to attain home-owner status. Thank you very much, Presidents Bush and Clinton.

Now we've elected another tool who thinks just the same.

Hussein is not taking America forward if he's hiring people from the Clinton Administration. In addition to Hillary, he's hired former Clinton Cabinet member, Bill Richardson, while his new Chief of Staff was Clinton's Chief of Staff, Rahm "F--- the Republicans" Emmanuel. Does that sound like a guy who wants to be nonpartisan? The latest hire, Tim Geither, also in the Clinton Treasury Department.

I'd like to ask my co-worker now, "As a Democrat, you wanted to get away from the Clinton machine, so you voted Obama, what do you think so far?" It sure doesn't look like 'change' and 'hope' to me, It looks like the same phony socialist propaganda. Yet, another retarded person fell for the smooth talking charismatic empty suit.

Look, as long as more and more American voters get the majority of their news and information from late night talk shows, like Letterman and Leno, Comedy Central and PMSNBC, the odds of having a candidate who will speak for individual liberty, free markets and self-government in either party, will keep shrinking. It's become a popularity contest, who can make the most promises. In the three televised presidential debates, I challenge you to find the words, 'constitutional authority', spoken by either candidate.

You Republicans out there, our party has already started pandering to the celebrity culture, with the Sarah Palin appearance on Saturday Night Live. Could you imagine Reagan, JFK or IKE appearing on SNL or MTV?

It's insane that we've sunk to this level. Don't get me wrong, there's always been pandering, but now we have to 'get' the votes of the low-lives watching South Park.

H.L. Mencken once described Democracy as, " a worshipping of jackals by jackasses." That couldn't be more prevalent than in 2008.

Let's get back to a 'Republic' that the Founding Fathers wanted.

TJ Madison is a libertarian-Republican pundit living in Fond du Lac, WI. He is employed in the health-care industry.

*Thanks to Julie Wisner for coming up with title.

Lincoln; Stages; Work; Warren Buffett

noreply@blogger.com (Thomas Aquinas) — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 23:34:00 +0000

I’ve finally secured a job this week, thankfully, and will now, once again, be paying taxes to the government against my will.
On to the ramblings.

‘Free Speech’ Board

My school has a dry erase board in the cafeteria where they put political questions then have a bunch of socialists argue how much socialism should happen. Starting this week I will put the weekly question here, along with my answer and the dumbest answer, or exchange that happened on the board.

This week’s question: Should there be Free Trade with all other nations.

My answer: Yes, other countries have comparative advantages over Americans when they specialize in certain areas. This allows Americans to do other jobs which promote progress.

Dumbest Answer: NO, THIS ALLOWS MULTI-NATIONAL CORPORATIONS TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF POOR PEOPLE IN OTHER COUNTRIES.

My response: I don’t know where to start. If it’s free trade then the person working at this ‘multi-national corporation’ chose to work there and if he still works there he obviously likes it and is fine with the pay. Most corporations who expand overseas pay their workers two or three times the average pay. The cost of living is much lower in countries other than America.

Lincoln was not good!

Over and over again I read and hear the Lincoln worship alive today, yet I never hear a contrary opinion, so here is mine.

The Civil War was not started over slavery. The ending of slavery was an outcome of the war, but it was not the point.

Most southern states seceded, as was their constitutional right, because they did not like how big the federal government was becoming or how high it put tariffs on everything the south needed, which was killing the southern economy. In the Journals of most Southern soldiers you find writings about independence, not about slavery. In fact, Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson were both morally against slavery and wanted it to end.

After the Southern States seceded, Lincoln unconstitutionally sent the military to attack the South to bring them back to the Union. This whole time, by the way, he repeatedly said how he wished to end the war without stopping slavery, and had, in fact, called Blacks second-class citizens with less human rights than Whites in his first inaugural address.

During the war Lincoln held thousands of South supporters in jail without a trial or any sort of Habeas Corpus, just because he wanted to.

Not only did Lincoln do this, but he is probably the cause of today’s neocons, he combined imperialism with big government and set an example for the future republicans.

Quote of the Week

Creating false distinctions between human rights and property rights plays into the hands of Democrat and Republican Party socialists who seek to control our lives. If we buy into the notion that somehow property rights are less important, or in conflict with, human or civil rights, we give the socialists a freer hand to attack our property.

-Walter Williams

Poll

We have a new poll.

How will Obama Govern?

Well, will help civil liberties

Badly, will help socialism

Both

Neither, won't pass anything

Please visit the homepage to vote.

Jackpot

I was exploring the Mises.org site the other day, and I found, perhaps, the bets libertarian site that currently exists.

In the media section they have a crapload of audio and video files available including many books and lectures for free download.

Beyond Stage One

I am currently reading Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One
by Thomas Sowell, the focus of the book is looking beyond stage one of any situation. This is also touted by Bastiat and Hazlitt (both used the Broken Window Fallacy) and I believe is the easiest way to quickly kill any crazy economic notions preached by politicians or the media. Here are a few examples:

Minimum Wage- Stage One: Wages in general are lifted for workers.

Stage Two: Employers find themselves paying more in wages than before and have to correct other expenses to make up for it.

Stage Three: Prices rise, returns diminish and employees are laid off.

Stage Four: Employers who are held down by minimum wage laws cannot hire people with minimum experience because those people’s production would not be worth minimum wage.

Stage Five: People are unable to gain valuable experience and are never able to find a job.

Unions – Stage One: A union is put in place and the wages of workers in general rise.

Stage Two: Since the employer is being forced to pay his workers more than their worth (if he was paying them less in the first place they easily could have gone somewhere else where they could make more) he raises prices and lays off workers.

Stage Three: Good employees who ordinarily would have been influenced by bonuses no longer have that incentive because in union plants each worker must be given the same raise, and their quality of work goes down.

Stage Four: The person with seniority gets a promotion first; even though it is very possible (and likely considering he would have gotten a promotion sooner if he was capable) someone a lot better for the job is available.

Pay Higher Wages Multi-National Corporation- Stage One: A US Corporation who is producing its shoes in Mexico is forced to raise its raises to US levels. Immediately after, the workers have higher wages and are temporarily more prosperous.

Stage Two: The workers are about one/fifth as productive (an actual statistic) as US workers so as the factory begins to lose money many are laid off.

Stage Three: Eventually, the company cannot afford to keep the factory in Mexico and shuts it down moving back to the US. Workers who just a few months (maybe weeks) later were making twice as much as the average wage in their area now are jobless.

Stage Four: Consumers have to pay more for their product and investors lose money as the company first loses money then needs to spend a lot of it buying a new factory and hiring and training workers, all the while losing the products they would have been able to make in the past.

Having a Job is Very Good

I was out of work for a year while finishing up high school then starting college, but I recently got a job at a KFC near the college (I had worked at one for a year-and-a-half in the past).

The feeling of production and the self-confidence one gets while working is rarely eclipsed.

Warren Buffett is not an Economist

Warren Buffett is without a doubt a genius and one of the best businessman and investors in American history.

That said he is far from an economist.

Reading Snowball (the newest biography on him) one finds that Buffett’s father was an Old-Right republican very similar to Barry Goldwater, and as close as one gets to libertarianism without being a libertarian. This is extremely surprising considering Buffett is pretty much a socialist, consider that he said budget deficits don’t matter, but trade deficits do.

What?!

A budget deficit necessarily means the government is spending more money then it steals from citizens, which means the money cannot be used in the economy, on this basis alone budget deficits are bad.

Trade deficits, on the other hand, are good. The current US trade deficit means that US workers are freed from doing things they do not want to do (if they wanted to do them they would accept the wages making it possible for them to be employed in these jobs) and doing things where they are more productive.

A Surprisingly Libertarian Movie

I watched Other People’s Money in a management class (we were talking a business’ social responsibility which I’ll get to in another post). I rolled my eyes throughout the movie as Danny DeVito’s character was made to look evil.

But, at the end of the movie when his character gives a speech trying to take over a company and get rid of a losing division, the character makes a pretty good speech knocking down protectionism, though I do not agree with all of his statements I recommend this movie.

The Government Does Not Produce

This seems to be unknown, even considering its obviousness, so I’ll say it here:

“The government produces nothing any money it has was stolen from someone.”

If you have any questions about this please comment with them.

Thomas Aquinas is an 18 year-old college student who recently started reading more than watching tv and the result has been immense knowledge, that however seems to be a negative as not very many people share this knowledge.

Compassionate Conservatism, R.I.P.

noreply@blogger.com (Agent Madison) — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 03:19:00 +0000

TJ Madison

As the George W. Bush presidential term ends, limited-government aficionados still in the Republican Party are left to wonder: what could have been.

The Republican Party, a party who makes its living praising 'small' government and railing against 'big' government, has certainly done the opposite the last eight years. Where did it all go wrong?

It started in the presidential primary season in early 2000. Texas governor George Bush, used the term 'compassionate conservatism' when describing his political theory. Eight years later, we find out what compassionate conservatism is all about: Big government Republican or moderate Republican.

My guess, is that he saw the defeat his father took in 1992 and realized he couldn't get nominated while being a moderate. However, that's what he was- a moderate! So a scheme was hatched to start using the term compassionate conservative, to get the nomination of a 'real' conservative party. To this day, I'm not sure what the term actually means. Was he saying conservatism by itself, was not compassionate?

Don't forget, it was his father who said in 1988: "...a determination to direct the United States to a kinder and gentler nation." I took that to mean, "when I'm President, I won't run America like that mean old conservative, Ronald Reagan."

Now in 2000, Bush 43 starts using the compassionate conservative term, as if to say, "when I'm President, I won't run America like Newt Gingrich".

Meanwhile, Bush goes on to win the Primary and then the Presidency. Federal spending skyrockets in every facet, domestic programs, military, new entitlements and foreign aid. All of it not his fault alone. As President, he just went and signed every huge bill sent to him by congress - a Republican congress!

This is a long way from 1994, when Republicans won the 'House' for the first time in forty years. Some of the proudest moments of being a Republican was when congress had Clinton cornered, to where he had to pass 'welfare reform' and get 'balanced budgets'. After that, I started thinking: What if we had a Republican President to go along with this Republican congress?

I guess the old saying, 'be careful what you wish for', has never been more appropriate.

Prescription Drug Bill.

Amnesty for illegals.

Major wars in two countries.

An almost worthless American dollar.

Wall Street bailouts.

Billions to Africa for AIDS.

Major deficit problems.

Is this what compassionate conservatism is? As a Republican, is this what I voted for? It's almost like Bush and the Republicans were trying to 'out-liberal' the liberal. Now Americans think that the country is in such dire need of change, they elect a pseudo-Marxist for President.

Talk about an over-correction!

I now know the worst decision Ronald Reagan ever made: asking George H. Bush to be his VP. Had he not, America may never heard of Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton and George W. Bush.

I hope for the sake of this country, January 20, 2009 is the death of compassionate conservatism. If not, Americans will only be able to choose between Democratic Socialism and Republican Socialism.

And that is not a choice.

TJ Madison is a libertarian Republican pundit living in Fond du Lac, WI. His day job is working in the health industry.

Sour Grapes?

noreply@blogger.com (Agent Madison) — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 16:42:00 +0000

TJ Madison 7 October 2008

When I awoke on Wednesday morning following the election, the first thing I heard was, “Well, you were right, he won.” You see, I had went to bed when Barack Hussein had 210 electoral votes to McCain’s 74. It didn’t take Nostradamus to see where this was going.

Once Barack buried the Clinton Machine in the Democratic primary’s it didn’t take a genius to figure out that the masses would pick the Democrat candidate over the Republican. It came down to three issue’s: Iraq, economy, personality. Barack Hussein has a likable personality, while the economy and Iraq weren’t going to change in a couple of months, especially if the Media had anything to say about it.

The Media was clear that, it wanted you to vote for the new, fresh face with charisma; and not the creepy old guy who couldn’t use a Blackberry.

This was one prediction where I would have liked to be wrong. But, when you’re expecting a disappointing outcome that eventually happens, it’s hard to get worked up when it finally does happen.

I did however, think that McCain had a glimmer of hope in the final two weeks, when Barack and his $600 million almost ‘bought him defeat from the jaws of victory’.

I didn’t listen to Talk Radio on Wednesday, I didn’t need to hear why the election turned out the way it did. John McCain lost by six points, without Sarah Palin on the ticket, probably 10 points. McCain may have lost a few voters with the Palin pick, however, he got many more conservatives to come out and vote, that were otherwise staying home.

I get a kick out of people who literally scream about corruption and Washington career politicians. Then, when they have a chance to vote for a person who is as far away from Washington as you can possibly get, who took on corruption in her own State, they don’t vote her. Instead, they vote for two Senators, who are also blood-sucking lawyers living in Washington!

I can’t tell how many times I heard from women, “I just don’t think she’s ready to be President.”

Why? Because she doesn’t have the voice of some ball-buster like Hillary Clinton. Or maybe, because she didn’t have a hyphenated name she wasn’t a real women?

No, the reason you didn’t want her, was because she didn’t have a ‘D’ after her name, and she thought killing unborn babies was barbaric, and needed to be stopped. So you voted for the unknown, empty suit, metro-sexual from the most corrupt city in the United States, along with his 36-year Washington Senator VP pick.

You figure it out.

Alas, the election is over, and it’s time to congratulate the ‘winners’:

Hugo Chavez, President (Dictator) of Venezuela, Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, leaders of the terrorist group Hamas. All of these scumbag’s constantly complain about America being the ‘Great Satan’. And they all endorsed Barack Hussein Obama.

The ACLU. You love to talk about ‘free speech’, except for speech of ‘right-wing’ American Patriots. You ‘claim’ to love the First Amendment, as for the Second, Fourth and Tenth, those amendments (along with the rest of he Constitution) is outdated and needs to be eliminated with the changing times.

Hollywood. All you cesspool of freaks got together with George Soros, and bought yourself a candidate. Good for you. Will there be room for Christian voices in America, or do you want them to leave?

Teachers Unions. Maybe you’ll get your wish, too. Because $10,000 per pupil, per school year, just isn’t enough to teach children math, reading and writing.

College Students. Yes, the idiots who believe everything their socialist professors tell them. Walking around in ‘Che Guevara’ t-shirts like morons, while a Capitalist pays for your college tuition.

Also, congratulations to the people sitting in coffee shops for hours, writing a manuscript on your Mac notebook, that will never be published. To the yuppie scum who drive Volvo’s and Saabs, with Obama bumper stickers. Hope you don’t mind paying higher auto taxes when you trade those cars in for newer versions. By the way, you wouldn’t know a decent car if it bit you in the ass! You bought the Volvo or Saab to keep up with your ‘just as stupid’ neighbors.

And to the adults that walk around with the IPODs in public- Grow up. Maybe if you talked to people, instead of living in your own world, you would wakeup out of your ‘music coma’. Oh, everybody’s voting for Obama, I will too.

You make me sick!

Look, I don’t know how Barack Hussein will Govern. It could be the radical revolutionary of the Marxist element, or he could turn out to be a Clinton type, who knew the ‘far-left’ was very dangerous to the health and prosperity of this nation.

Let’s all pray it’s the latter.

Me, I’m just going to sit back and watch it all unfold, while I “cling to my guns and religion.”

TJ Madison is a pundit living in Fond du Lac, WI. His day jobs are, working in the health care industry and fighting Creeping Socialism.

What to expect with Obama

noreply@blogger.com (Thomas Aquinas) — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 22:11:00 +0000

I spent six and a half hours exit polling last night, so I did not see any results until it was made official that the American people have elected the total opposite, in almost every way, candidate than that of the Founding Fathers (the good ones at least Alexander Hamilton and his followers don’t really count, they were just out for some place where they could be in control).

I don’t like being disappointed, which is why I did not lose my mind last night (I’ve been down on this election since Ron Paul was officially out), so I am taking a very pessimistic view of this presidency, hopefully Obama will do a little better than I am anticipating.

So, without further ado here are some things I think will happen under Obama:

The silly banking interference will continue - Obama wants to pay everyone's mortgage so those who were not smart enough to save money and pay only what they can afford will be rewarded by the stolen money from those who better planned. As a result billions of dollars will be sucked out of the economy and a lot of potential growth will be lost.
The troops will be moved - to Afghanistan or some other country, possibly Darfur, where they will participate in what the democrats have been criticizing for six years - intervention
Oil companies will have to endure a lot of interference from the government - and these companies which are searching non-stop for oil and ways to make it cheaper will be given another burden which will hurt the chances of cheaper oil.
The crappy union bill may be passed - and the mostly evil unions which are on the verge of falling out of all jobs not from the government may find its way back into America, where no worker will be able to keep his job and not be in a union, once union stewards find their way to a company and deceive half of the workers into signing a card. Another shot against the economy.
Countless unborn children will be murdered - possibly even those who have already been born.
The taxes on the 'rich' will be raised - and the people in America who create wealth will once again be looked down upon by the people they lift up.
Capital Gains Taxes will be doubled - and many people will stop investing in ventures which could greatly help Americans and instead move their money into tax-shielded trusts.
Will re-regulate - which I like to compare with punching a broken hand into a wall to heal it.
Equal pay bull-sh** - Many uneducated people are angry that the average woman's pay is less than a man's, this makes for a good talking point, but it does not stand up to actual analysis. The average woman does make less than a a man, but she also has less experience and usually works at lesser paying jobs (like teacher opposed to supervisor), this is not a stereotype, it is a fact.
Affirmative Action - Apparently the NAACP rated him 100% on affirmative action, ouch sounds like an insult to me. I believe the majority of my readers believe stealing is bad, so they must also disagree with this, seeing as some people are stealing from others in affirmative action.
Vigilant Government and high Corporate Tax rates - OK, first it is a myth that a corporation can be taxed, either the consumer is taxed with higher prices, the worker with lower wages or the investor with lower interest earned. Next, we already have many tens of thousands of freaking pages of regulation we obviously need less, this is not hard to understand.
Education - It's obvious that the American education system is crap, yet Barack wants to hire a million more inferior teachers and spend more on education.
Protectionist - I honestly don't understand how a 17 year-old (which is what I was when I first grasped this) can understand that protectionism does not work, yet so many Americans can be duped into believing it by politicians.
Funny Quote - According to On The Issues Barack said, "Eliminate government programs that no longer work," hopefully this means Obama will eliminate the whole of government, then allow us to start over with just property rights and a non-aggression axiom.
Good Bye, Second Amendment - I do not know why politicians even mention the Constitution anymore, none of them, WEoRP (with exception of Ron Paul), give a damn about it. Obama will put strong rules on guns and crime will rise as only those who care to buy a gun illegally will have them and no one will be able to protect himself.
Health Care is a Right - I'm not sure if this guy could be further from sanity. Personally, I would rather not go to a clinic that resembles the DMV or Post Office (Also, health care is not a right, the only right people should have is to do whatever they please without initiating force).

That's all I can stand writing for now, good luck in the next four years.

Thomas Aquinas is the pseudonym of an 18 year-old college student at an alarmingly liberal college in Salt Lake City, Utah. The only thing keeping him sane is the fact that he is correct.

Obama Overdose To Backfire?

noreply@blogger.com (Agent Madison) — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 16:25:00 +0000

TJ Madison 31 October, 2008

Let's be perfectly clear, with less then five days to go in this election season, it would be a "Dewey defeats Truman" type of scenario, if John McCain were to win this election over Barack Hussein. If the Polls are to be believed, John McCain has not led in this election at all, except the few days after the Republican National Convention; where he led by 1 to 5 points, depending on the polling company.

If McCain does pull this 'upset', I would chalk it up to one thing: over-saturation of Obama-mania.

As long as there have been elections, there have always been people elected (and not elected) over the silliest of reasons. Over the years I've heard things like: I don't like his (or her) campaign ads, I think he's attractive, I like him because he visited our town, I don't like his name, and so on.

This could be the election where the winner is decided, simply because the losing candidate spent too much money on radio and television advertising.

His campaign has become like the television game show, "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?" When the show was on one night per week, viewers were enamoured with it. When the show was on several nights a week, people got tired of it and stopped watching.

Barack Hussein has become the Regis Philbin of television. At first you think, hey, this is a nice guy and I like him. Weeks later, after seeing him too much, you think, Oh, man, I'm sick of this guy.

People got sick of something they used to love. Let's hope this is what happened to Obama. This may sound too simple to believe for the seasoned politico like you and me, but remember, these are the barely informed masses that decide elections.

And the masses are asses!

Now, I have no scientific data, though personally, after the Barack Hussein half-hour propaganda infomercial, I started to hear a lot of 'buzz' about how independent voters were sick about how much inundation they see and hear for Obama. Don't get me wrong, it's normal for people to bothered by the political ads by the end of October. However, when I hear a comment like, "with all the political ads I've already seen, after ten minutes I had to turn the infomercial off!" This coming from an independent voter. The first thing that came to mind was: WOW, I think Barack may have spent himself into a loss!

So, if McCain wins, you can thank the people who didn't vote Obama, simply because he over-saturated himself. You do have to have a big ego to run for President of the United States, however, couple that with Obama's assumption that he's already won, and his giant Messiah complex, he really is coming off as pretentious to the average voter.

It's true, as I write this column, three days after the Obama infomercial, McCain has crept closer into this race. In fact, Zogby polling has McCain at a 1 point lead!

The Stock Market may also believe it; it had it's biggest weekly gain since 1974. Apparently Wall Street would still like some form of Capitalism over Obama Socialism.

Maybe $600 million can't buy you an election?

Bumbling Biden Watch

By now you've probably heard about Joe Biden's prediction that, Barack will be tested by a foreign enemy within the first six months of his presidency. Well a couple things went through my mind: I thought the entire world and it's leaders wanted Barack Hussein to be the next President. Everything would be fantastic, once the 'Son of God' was elected to the White House. The United States would not have any enemies; The Palestinians, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela and all other American hating countries would have parades once Obama was elected on the 4th of November.

Remember, Barack Hussein would 'repair' our broken relationship with the rest of the world. After all, before George Bush, all countries loved the United States. The only top leader I know of, that wouldn't want a Obama Presidency is Nicolas Sarkozy of France.

So is that who Uncle Joe is talking about, when he says that, an enemy will test Barack?

All our enemies have practically endorsed Obama. Is it because they like him, or is it because they want a weaker America?

TJ Madison is a pundit, and currently employed in the health care industry in Fond du Lac, WI. His other job is fighting Creeping Socialism.

My Vote; Arguing with college students; Podcasts

noreply@blogger.com (Thomas Aquinas) — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 02:47:00 +0000

I missed last week for an assortment of reason which would just take up space were they to be printed here, so this week will have an extra long version of the ramblings.

I voted

I sent in my absentee ballot a few days ago, I voted for Bob Barr, for two main reasons:

I narrowed it down to him or Chuck Baldwin and I could not get over Baldwin’s protectionist position
Barr has polled at 6% and has a lot greater chance of showing America there are more than two choices.

A very strange statement

I got into an argument with another student here last week, he acknowledged that my economic thought made sense, but said there was no way someone could actually run for president and be as famous a Barack is while having such faulty positions, for that reason he still supports Barack.

Using this logic no famous person could possess any wrong conclusions.

Thomas Jefferson is also pretty famous, yet he would probably recommend Barack be deported to North Korea for a few years, because of Barack’s economic position, were he alive today.

Libertarian Podcasts

There are a number of great libertarian podcasts that can be downloaded daily, weekly, etc.

To find this just download iTunes, then go to the music store and search the following terms:

EconTalk – George Mason Professor Russ Roberts has a weekly about an hour long interview
Cato – I do not download this, but for those interested the Cato Institute has a daily podcast and also makes available a number of speeches from its events
Foundation for Economic Education – FEE has all of its summer lectures available
Lew Rockwell Show – Lew Rockwell interviews many of the people from the Ludwig von Mises institute, or those who write for his site, this is daily
Ludwig von Mises Institute – This is my favorite podcast, the Institute has numerous speeches (from half twenty minutes to two hours, there are probably about 25 currently available) and the audio of many books, including For a New Liberty, The Law, The Case Against the Fed and Conceived in Liberty
Reason TV – This is my favorite video podcast, it is produced by Drew Carey and sometimes hosted by him, the episodes come out pretty sporadically and are usually about ten minutes long.

If you’re not voting third party

Please vote for McCain. I know he’s an imperialist and barely less socialist than Obama, but the congress will most likely be won by the democrats and historically government has grown a lot less when the two branches battle each other.

A Christian socialist (or even democrat for that matter) is a hypocrite

Socialism is based on, “spreading the wealth around,” as Barack Obama put it. Since people are inherently unequal this involves the stealing from one person to give to another, therefore any Christian (or any other person morally against stealing) who is for socialism or even any form of taxation is a hypocrite.

There is no argument to this.

Salary Caps are insane

A trend in almost all sports today is to institute a salary cap. The salary cap limits the amount of money a team, can spend on all its players. Theoretically this would limit the ability of big towns with a lot of fans to just buy up all the players, which would kill any chance that small towns could win the championship.

However, this does not seem to work (the Yankees have long had the highest payroll in the league, but haven’t won the World Series since 2000, and failed to make the playoffs this year; the Rays are in the World Series with the second lowest payroll in the league), and even if it did would that be desirable?

This is just the exact same subsidization that successful Americans are forced to endure in our current Welfare State. Why not allow teams to compete in all levels, if a town cannot support a team it is most likely because they do not care about it (Green Bay supports an NFL team with just 100,000 residents), not because they are unable to, what better way is there to find the best cities to support teams?

Quote of the Week

“It is easy to be conspicuously "compassionate" if others are being forced to pay the cost”
– Murray N. Rothbard

Brace Yourself For Obamunism

noreply@blogger.com (Agent Madison) — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 13:46:00 +0000

TJ Madison 23 October, 2008

When it was clear that Obama would be the Democrat Party nominee, it was obvious that the Democrats and other Barack Obama supporters would play the race 'card' to some extent.

They haven't disappointed.

Besides the typical Jesse Jackson style of race-baiting we normally see from the leftists, the race 'card' has turned into the race 'deck', if you will.

Apparently, 'socialist' is now a code word for Black person.

Huh?

Well it's true, so says the Editorial page of the Kansas City Star. If you didn't know this, let Lewis Duiguid, columnist for the KC Star, set all you 'racists' straight.

Now I know anybody with half a brain, would read this editorial and think of it as ridiculous and harmless, However, could this be the beginning of a trend, that leftist plan to use against anyone critical of Barack Hussein and his policies?

You bet! If and when Obama wins, expect the next four years to be full of new 'taboo' words we won't be able to use when criticizing Obama. Well, you'll be able to use those words, but only at the risk of being called a 'racist'.

And who wants to be called a racist? Racist is a stigma that no politician can shake, once it's attached to him or her. Unless of course, you're Senator Robert Byrd, former member of the Ku Klux Klan, then it's all right.

Why? Because he's a Democrat, and they get a free pass from all racist charges- even if they were a legitimate racist!

If the word socialist is to be deemed racist and offensive by the new standards of political speak, it will be bad for business at the agentsofliberty.com. For those who have read our columns, know that Socialism is a word we tend to use often. One of the most important books ever written, The Road to Serfdom
, by F.A. Hayek, is written for, and to: THE SOCIALISTS OF ALL PARTIES.

Now, did he mean: the 'Blacks' of all parties. Of course not. It was written to all people, Black or otherwise, who wanted a collectivist society. Socialism has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with government ownership of business and a transfer of wealth. CASE CLOSED!

The American people, for the most part, don't want Socialism. So the only way rabid Obama supporters can get votes for a Socialist, is to scare the uninformed portion of the electorate, by getting them to think the other side is racist.

This may be old news to people who classify themselves as Republican or Conservative, but this will mushroom into something much bigger. When Barack Hussein becomes President, don't be surprised when most 'non-race' issue's, turn into 'race' issue's.

If you don't want $50 billion more going to the United Nations- You're a racist!

If you don't want to send troops to Darfur- You're a racist!

If you think Obama's ears are to big for his head- You're a racist!

Anything critical of Obama will try to be tied to race. All of it done to shut down the opposition.

Is there still anyway we could avoid this Obamunist disaster?

Yes, but having John McCain being the only one to stand between Americans and disaster, is not very comforting. If you believe the polls, 11% of people are still undecided, which means: if John McCain can convince those people that the economic 'crisis' is the fault of Democrats as well as Republicans, he could garner most of that undecided.

McCain must also point out that the House and the Senate could possibly contain super majorities for the Democrats. Which would be fillabuster proof. And that a vote for him would keep the Democrats in check for the next four years, since they are mostly to blame for this banking fiasco.

The truth about Barack 'paling' around with known terrorists is unfathomable to a lot of voters, it goes over their head. So stick with the line: I'm a maverick-Republican with experience, that will keep the Democrat majority in the House and Senate in check, and will work with them for a better America. Remember, you're dealing with people who haven't made up their mind yet, so how smart can they possibly be?

All of this could be a moot point, the Stock Market already knows who going to win. Why else would it keep dropping?

It's bracing itself for Obamunism.

TJ Madison is a libertarian Republican who works in the health care industry. His big dream is to become a Community Organizer.

October Office Politics (Part 1)

noreply@blogger.com (Agent Madison) — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 18:34:00 +0000

TJ MADISON 16 October, 2008

It's getting close enough to the election where I notice more and more co-workers tend to be more open to discussing politics.

Sure, politics is something discussed at the work place all year long, especially between people friendly with each other. However, every four years around this time, you begin to find out how some other people at work feel about current events and politicians.

And that can be discouraging.

Why? Well I don't know if you're like me, but when I find out someone is a leftist, I start to think of them differently. I would rather someone say to me they don't follow politics, then to say I'm voting for Obama. I can respect the person who doesn't care, it's the person who actually "understands" both sides of the issues, yet still votes for the leftist. And if you're going to vote for the leftist, fine. Just don't go around admitting it to anyone, or be proud of it by putting a bumper sticker on your car. It's like having a pro-abortion bumper sticker on your car. Yes, it's legally acceptable to be 'pro-choice', but should it be something to really 'brag' about?

By the way, why are you even driving a car anyway, shouldn't you be taking public transportation, when your master, Al Gore, told you how evil cars can be?

When you put that 'pro-choice' sticker on your car, you're just telling everyone: "Hey look at me, the most important issue is, being able to suck the brains out of an unborn baby's head." Who cares about taxes, trade, foreign policy and any other issue, I just want to make sure women have the 'right' to kill their 'inconvenience'.

Sorry, I'm digressing, but as a employee in a Catholic hospital with many Catholics, I find it utterly disgusting to see and hear all the 'pro-choice' comments to justify voting for left-wing politicians.

Besides not caring about the 40 million unborn killed, when you tell people you're an Obama supporter, you're telling them a lot more about yourself. Look at the infamous people who support Obama, and you tell me if you would still be 'proud' to have that Obama '08 bumper sticker on your earth polluting automobile?

1. Whoppi Goldberg. The big authority on foreign policy.

2. Madonna. Yes, the prostitute herself, is a proud Obama supporter. Why is she wasting all her time as a singer when this genius could be our Secretary of State.

3. Louis Farrakhan. The Jew hating race-baiter, who still can't get beyond slavery in America 200 years ago.

4. Rosie O'Donnell. The big mouth lesbian pig, who thinks Americans attacked themselves on September 11, 2001. Don't forget she's a physics expert, too.

5. Sean Penn. The biggest moron in Hollywood, who thinks living in Cuba under Castro, would be better than living in the United States.

6. Oprah. Yes, she can be admired in some ways, but she's just a big-headed phony. Supposedly, a big defender of women 'breaking the glass ceiling', however when it comes to Sarah Palin, a women running for the second highest political position in the land, she has absolutely no time to have her on her show. Why? Because Big Mama Oprah doesn't care about all women, just the Socialist women. Failing to realize, it was Capitalism, not Socialism that helped her make her billion dollar empire.

7. Hugo Chavez. Communist Dictator of Venezuela. Yes, Communist, enough said.

The list could go on with other classless clowns, like Michael Moore and Oliver Stone, who glorify Communism and anti-American sentiment in virtually all their movies.

Also, reparations 'hero's' such as Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton. Not to mention felons, pedophiles, smut peddlers and other assorted freaks. Why would a good American want to be put in the same 'camp' as those people and their insane idea's?

Why don't you get a bumper sticker that says: Larry Flynt and I support Barack Obama.

However, being linked to garbage like that is only the tip of the iceberg. When you tell people you vote Democrat, You're telling the rest of us, the Federal government is not big enough. You're more concerned about silly 'rights' then with concern for liberty. Look, we all want rights- the right to be left alone. The left in this country wants the 'right' to health care, the 'right' to food and housing, the 'right' to education. That's not freedom, that's dependency.

Those aren't 'rights', those are rations of slavery, like entitlements. People on welfare get entitlements, and how free are they, sitting around waiting for a check from the rest of us?

The only 'right' one should have, is the right to do as you damn well please. Then accept the consequences.

TJ Madison is a libertarian Republican living in Fond du Lac, WI. He works in the health-care industry, but his dream is to become a Community Organizer.