Stephen den Beste points out this article:

Power and Weakness, by Robert Kagan. A disturbing view into the mindset of Europeans. What if your doctor had this view of your treatment for a deadly condition:

Europeans insist they approach problems with greater nuance and sophistication. They try to influence others through subtlety and indirection. They are more tolerant of failure, more patient when solutions don't come quickly. They generally favor peaceful responses to problems, preferring negotiation, diplomacy, and persuasion to coercion.

As opposed to this one:

Americans tend to seek finality in international affairs: They want problems solved, threats eliminated.

I don't want my doctor to forgive himself when he loses me, if another doctor could save me.

I think it was Jefferson who said, "the only thing required for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing." The EU and the UN epitomize the do nothing approach.

As the Holidays approach

I find myself unable to devote much time to by blog.

II Chronicles 7:14
If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

I am meditating on this today.

I was just checking out Kant's

Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics. I see this - the third paragraph:

First, as concerns the sources of metaphysical cognition,
its very concept implies that they cannot be empirical. Its
principles (including not only its maxims but its basic notions)
must never be derived from experience. It must not be physical
but metaphysical knowledge, viz., knowledge lying beyond
experience. It can therefore have for its basis neither external
experience, which is the source of physics proper, nor internal,
which is the basis of empirical psychology. It is therefore a
priori knowledge, coming from pure Understanding and pure Reason.

I see why Ayn Rand metaphorically threw Kant's philosophy across the room. He begins his observation of reality by accepting the bonds of his terminology. It is certainly acceptable to attempt to use the verbal tools available to describe what you find. Metaphorically speaking, great things were done before the advent of modern machinery, but this looks like he's insisting that it is illigitimate to use anything but hand tools.

The article cited in the previous post

deserves a little fisking.

Not the Peikoff article, there is little there to disagree with.

This here paragraph, from Puritan Humbugs and a History of Christmas Bashing, by Jeff Westover, deserves [some] debunking, by a better historian than I, but I don't see any around here, so....

Here's the paragraph in full:

It must be noted that the England described by Dickens was not all that exaggerated. Scrooge may have been a fictional character but his attitudes were based in fact. These were terrible economic times and the budding Industrial Revolution turned minds to work – and not to holidays or the celebrations of them. Families of workers struggled mightily to make ends meet, working seven days a week and enduring horrific working conditions. It was an era of child labor and success was measured by the amount of work accomplished and money earned.

I don't quibble with the first two sentences. I'll check up on the economic situation as soon as I can. I don't doubt that the Protestant Work Ethic, or rather, Puritan teachings about how life is a vale of tears and we're supposed to suffer--"turn your laughter into mourning" the Good Book says--led to a great deal more suffering than "the pursuit of happiness", a competing English Enlightenment concept, ever did.

It's that sort of dilemma that makes Objectivists atheists.

Well, I'll carry on with this later.

Yeah! The Dow cracked 10000!

Even if it is just because the Fed and the Treasury are pumpin' out credit and cash by the ton, it's still cool.

All right, that pretty much restores everything.

Whoa! A little template trouble there!

Leonard Peikoff tells us

Why Christmas should be more commercial.

Santa Claus is, indeed, the anti-Christ.

Non-puritan Christians need to realize the degree to which Puritan teachings have infected their theology and ignore them.

Thomas Sowell performs his usual, Bastiat-like, service to America.

In today's article at Townhall.com he explains how stupid the "elites" are who think WalMart is a problem to be solved. "The very idea that third parties should be deciding whether a particular business is good for the whole country shows incredible chutzpa."

He offers this beautifully eloquent refutation of those who think we little people are under the "power" of Walmart: "I can't remember ever having bought anything from Wal-Mart and there is not the slightest thing that they can do to make me."

Always read Sowell.

I think I'll start taking this Rebecca Hagelin more seriously as well.

I'll analyze this further when I get the chance.

Hey! I went to the Townhall.com Meetup.

Hey! That's me! The bald guy with glasses on the left! The Minneapolis, MN Meetup Photos. Of course, in the second picture, I'm the bald guy with glasses on the right.

I like to read

Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams and Larry Elder every chance I get. You can find them at World Net Daily, Townhall.com, Drudge and Capitalism Magazine. Their articles are all good today. Look for "columnists".

And check out this interview of T. J. Rodgers, founder and CEO of Cypress Semiconductor.
Windows Media files. It's fantastic! What a hero of Free Minds and Free Markets! And a Packer fan to boot!

"It doesn't matter to me if I'm buying from a multinational company,

as long as they give me what I want." said Mr. Carrillo, an administrative aide, who lives three blocks from a Wal-Mart. From the New York Times.
(Link requires registration)

This is the best news ever.

Thanks to Tyler Cowen at Marginal Revolution.

I was reading Mises.org

while I waited for this machine to finish up a job it's doing for me.
Check out daily article: Economics Lost in Translation. It updates Mises' 1956 book The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality by means of a review of Bill Murray's movie Lost in Translation.
It sounds like it covers a lot of the same ground as Thomas Sowell's The Vision of the Anointed.
I bought three copies with the thought that I'd give one each to Bob Davis and Dave Thompson at KSTP-AM.

For those who were wondering about the name of my daughter,

It's Finnish.
One of the characteristic traits of the Finns that I know is a tendency toward chauvinism. At least it's characteristic of the Finns whose company I've enjoyed, which must mean that I share the trait with them.
All the non-chauvinistic Finns I've met seemed to suffer from an inferiority-complex. Or something--they were all given to excessive drinking and drug abuse (as opposed to moderate drug abuse).
BTW, I think it's possible to use intoxicants moderately and responsibly--I can't seem to do it, I tried for years, but I don't deny that it's possible.

I'm reading Faith and Liberty:

The Economic Thought of the Late Scholastics, By Alejandro A. Chafuen.

Paraphrasing Juan de Mariana, Chafuen says:

In the beginning, tyrants are soft and smiling, but once their power is well-established, "their sole intent becomes to demolish and offend." "The rich and the good" become their prime victims. Like doctors who use the healing arts to try to expel bad viruses from the body, tyrants "work to expel from the republic those who can contribute most to its brightness and its future."

And directly quoting:

"They drain the individual treasures. Every day they impose new taxes. They plant the seeds of disruption among the citizens. They engage in one war after another. They put into practice every possible method to avoid rebellion against their cruel tyranny. They construct large monstrous monuments but at the cost of the riches and over the protests of their subjects. Do you think, by chance, that the pyramids in Egypt and the underground caves in Olympus of Thesalia had a different origin?"

Emphasis Chafuen's.

Populists are budding tyrants.

I suppose, that when I quote a book I should cite the page number. In the paperback it is pp. 52-53.

Aliina Loviisa is here!!!

5:10
10 lbs 5 oz.
November 20, 2003.
Apgar 9 & 9.
Best lookin' newborn I ever saw.

Have I mentioned I'm a cheesehead?

My favorite quote of the day:

Mark Tauscher -

On win: "We expected to win this game. We know they're a good team and everything but we feel when we're executing we're a good football team. And today we were. To be honest with you, you don't see the same level of excitement as after that Minnesota game because we know there's a ton of work left to do. It's not good enough just to keep winning one, losing one. We're all excited about the win, but we know this win doesn't mean anything if we don't get it done next weekend. It's a gratifying, it's definitely a great win for us, but what are we going to do next?"

I like it because I think it shows exactly the right attitude. Enjoy the win, acknowledge the work still to be done, and commit to work to get it done. Promise nothing but continued effort.

Anyway, as I was saying...

My mother was a Missionary Baptist, so whenever we went to Oklahoma we went to the Missionary Baptist Church in Vian, OK. Still do in fact. My cousin's husband is the pastor there. Hmm. This doesn't look like the right location. Ah! Actually it's this one.

I don't see much that's incompatible between the two churches, but then my mother was really my primary source of information about theology.

But, then the Charismatic Movement hit our church and we got into that. When I was a junior in high school I went to Sunday school and church on Sunday morning, Youth Group and Evening Service Sunday evening (sometimes at the Assembly of God downtown), Wednesday night prayer service, Tuesday night was Youth Bible Study, Thursday was Campus Life, and Friday was Bible Study.

Now, I understood that the Charismatics considered people not to be saved (and therefore going to Hell) if they didn't speak in tongues, but when a missionary from the Missionary Baptists came to Duluth, my mother started going there and I went with her. That was where I discovered that they believed that speaking in tongues was of the Devil.

My mother considered this a minor point. The good news was that I was more influenced on these points by the Wesleyans who, oddly enough, had a compromise position right from the beginning. I have two books on John Wesley. I'll blog it up for all my adoring fans here shortly.

I just got my Mises Memo in the mail.

Which you can get by donating to the Mises Institute. That's where I got the quote above. They're bragging up their kind treatment by Le Monde. The reporter is obviously one of ours. Thank God such a person exists.

Somehow I would like to combine being a hardcore Austrian and a hardcore Objectivist. And somehow squeeze in the fact that I'm a member of the Lutheran Church. ELCA, if anyone cares, although fine theological distinctions aren't of interest to me.
I could be called a methodological atheist. I believe in living as though the responsibility for my life, liberty and happiness could not be shunted off to some - at best - poorly understood superbeing. The motivation for and essence of morality is that we should do what we can to make life worth living for as long as we can.

That might make me a Deist, which are now called Unitarians although I think I'd dislike a lot of the new age crap that's filtered in, and I doubt I'd like their ceremonies.

I was actually raised a fundamentalist Christian. The first and main church I went to as a child was The Darrow Road Wesleyan Church. I got married in that building there, but I don't think I'd been to more than half a dozen services there. They built it just as I was finishing college.

The Wesleyans split off from some of the Methodists over the issue of slavery. The Wesleyans were abolitionists. I consider that admirable. John Wesley founded the Methodist movement within the English Church in the 1700s more or less by inventing the Bible Study. They were rejected and booted out.

Here's the key to individualism.

From: Discovering Mises: A Turning Point

by William H. Peterson

"....(H)uman action proceeds strictly through individuals even though everyone is a member of various organizations such as families, societies, nationalities, political parties, religious groups, states, etc."

My buddy Jim Powell

proving that FDR's [scare quote]Brain Trust[unscare quote] examined the economy through their rectal membranes.

The Libertarian Enterprise

directed me to this organization, whose quarterly report reads like sci-fi.

Thank God!

And if you haven't checked it out yet, here's the SkyCar!

Morgan Reynolds, former Dept. of Labor economist,

backs up my point about Hoover being the father of the New Deal and the enemy of Laissez Faire.

This is Luskin's mission statement:

Chronicle of the Conspiracy
Join us as we discover, document, expose and challenge the bad people, the bad institutions and the bad ideas that stand in the way of wealth creation -- and show you how to fight back!

I want to see some more on that last phrase.

I suppose the guys in the Krugman Truth Squad are modeling fact checking.

In the Kling article

he says this:

The Bugs of Austrianism

Given that Austrian economics focuses on The Knowledge Problem and Competition as a Discovery Procedure, which of the following would you guess would be a metaphor for an Austrian explanation of booms and busts in business investment?

(A) Imagine a restaurant in which the menu includes some items that can be cooked quickly, using stir-fry and microwave techniques, while other dishes such as stews and roasts require longer and more roundabout cooking methods. In a well-functioning restaurant, the extent to which consumers are hungry now or are willing to wait determines the mix of food that is prepared. The waiters deliver the right information to the chefs about how much of each type of meal to prepare. However, like a bad waiter, a central bank can enter the picture and deceive the chefs into thinking that people want more stews and roasts than they truly desire. This leads to a boom in long-term cooking, followed by a bust later on.

(B) Imagine a restaurant in which the chefs have many new recipes to try. Most of them will not be popular, but some will represent successful gastronomic progress. When the chefs become optimistic, they try many new recipes, which means a boom. When the chefs become risk-averse, there is a slump.



For reasons that baffle me, the Austrians prefer explanation (A). Explanation (B) is closer in spirit to Keynes, the arch-enemy of the Austrians.

My experience both in business and in economics leads me to prefer (B). I have never been in a business situation where a decision boiled down to a choice between two projects with known, predictable rates of return, with one project short-term and the other project long-term. Instead, the typical challenge has been to guess whether a new business idea will be successful or not, given uncertainties about feasibility, marketing, technology risk, and other factors.

Austrian Business Cycle Theory, as I, a layman, understand it, states that Booms and Busts are caused by somebody, generally a central banker but historically private banks have issued bank notes based on fractional reserves also, misinforming entrepreneurs about how much money is available. The cooks are being told to try anything they want and to hell with the cost. Truffles from France? Sure! Borrow some of my cash! Plenty more where that came from.
The trouble is, there's not plenty more. Pretty soon you get inflation, or stagflation or hyperinflation if you don't reign in the printing presses or the credit expansion. When you do reign it in, everybody overreacts and you get a crash. It seems to me that Greenspan did what he was supposed to do in popping the bubble and engineering a soft landing for the economy, but everybody went apeshit anyway.

Monetarism is going to get us this response.

The only answer is to go back to gold.

I took the "Are You an Austrian?" quiz

at Mises.org.

I scored 100%, but that may just be the kiss-ass in me looking to please the professor.

There were some Chicago positions worth pursuing, but my current level of economic education tells me that the Austrian points were preferable. [Where should I put the cesur in that sentence?]

Robert Kling at Tech Central Station seems to have been disappointed to only have scored 78%. If every economist in the country scored as much as 50% the world would be a better place.

Another good point, same article.

Some say that by the mere ability to resist evil we become the very evil we fight. That view equates initiation of aggression for spite or profit with defense of self and family. In my humble opinion, the two are not equal. Protection of innocents is a noble cause. Failure to plan or failure to act when necessary is not noble, merely irresponsible for it leads to extinction and encourages predators to victimize others besides us.

Interesting point from an RKBA site.

Becoming an adult involves learning to respect others and to take responsibility for our own actions. Most people learn those skills and appreciate the values on which peaceful coexistence is predicated. Unfortunately, a minority of people, fewer than 2%, decline to behave in a civilized manner. Civilized behavior, for the purpose of our discussion, could be described as acting humanely towards others even if no punishment would be incurred by acting meanly.

Kim du Toit

Nuff said.

The good people I work for just gave me a baby gift.

Of course, being the stereotypical computer nerd, I have no idea how to properly express my appreciation. I'm quite speechless.

EPITAPH ON THE POLITICIAN HIMSELF, Hilaire Belloc

Here richly, with ridiculous display,
The Politician's corpse was laid away.
While all of his acquaintance sneered and slanged
I wept: for I had longed to see him hanged.

Amen.

Of course the article goes on to compare

the enviromentalists' projections of the results of loosening the regs to their preferred perfect utopia of an earth unencumbered by human civilization. Oh, yeah, they didn't say that did they? Ask yourself, what is the standard that their criticism are based on?

I was listening to Bob Davis yesterday

on KSTP, when some knucklehead called up and claimed that George Bush had made America a dirtier place by loosening environmental restrictions.

Funny that that's the first I heard of it. Here's the second. Check this out:

Lawyers at E.P.A. Say It Will Drop Pollution Cases
By CHRISTOPHER DREW and RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr.

Published: November 6, 2003

WASHINGTON, Nov. 5 — A change in enforcement policy will lead the Environmental Protection Agency to drop investigations into 50 power plants for past violations of the Clean Air Act, lawyers at the agency who were briefed on the decision this week said.

The lawyers said in interviews on Wednesday that the decision meant the cases would be judged under new, less stringent rules set to take effect next month, rather than the stricter rules in effect at the time the investigations began.

The lawyers said the new rules include exemptions that would make it almost impossible to sustain the investigations into the plants, which are scattered around the country and owned by 10 utilities.
...
Funny how restrictions not yet in effect can do so much damage. That could be taken either way, they obviously have stopped enforcing the old rules, but when did that start?

I just edited the previous post, so ya know.

I amplified a couple of my comments, but mostly I just improved the divisions between my comments and theirs.

Carrying on:

6. The global divide between poverty and wealth has reached intolerable proportions

Try freedom

and the mounting pressure on natural resources

Try privatizing them.

makes the current model of globalisation unsustainable.

The model that works is no model. Give up trying to control the future.

Social inequality is worsening and undermining the stability of societies in more and more countries. And while the percentage of the world's population living in absolute poverty is declining, the number of people struggling to survive in such poverty has never been higher, as nearly three billion people now live on less than two dollars per day, most of them being women.

I'm back. I read the other day in In Defense of Global Capitalism that the definition of absolute poverty is living on one dollar or less per day. They're fudging the numbers.

At the same time, the benefits of expanding global trade and foreign direct investment remain mostly in the North. For hundreds of millions of workers, basic labour and social rights remain a distant dream and a privilege of those in wealthy nations. Most people in the world lack any form of social protection, while a small minority in many poorer countries enjoy enormous wealth.

That's because they, the wealthy minority, are the government. Bourgeois democracies have strong, well-off middle classes; socialist bureaucracies and hereditary aristocracies don't. Don't pretend you're offering something better.

The Socialist International therefore believes that a central challenge for our world today is to make it possible for developing countries to catch up, but without endangering the global ecological balance.

You can eat as long as you don't endanger a snail darter.

This must be the basis of a global program for sustainable development in three dimensions: economic, social and environmental.

"Wha-a-at...do-o-es...a...ye-ello-ow...li-i-ight...me-e-ean?" Rise up out of poverty slower. (Sorry, I forget what movie that line's from.)

7. For the Socialist International a comprehensive and balanced strategy for sustainable development must be based on a New Global Deal, which would require that:

developing countries improve their integration in the global economy,

Obey us.

build their national capacity in institutional, economic, technological and educational terms,

According to our dictates.

fight against poverty,

Isn't that supposed to be what it's all about? for everyone in politics? You don't have a monopoly on compassion for the poor, even though this phrase presumes to arrogate it to yourselves.

improve working conditions as well as the access of women to the labour market, and control major ecological imbalances.

Tell it to the Saudis.

developed countries open their markets to exports from developing countries,

That's call free trade. I wish we'd thought of it. If we don't soon, the commies'll take the issue from us.

encourage good investment in poorer parts of the World

Free (and later forgiven) loans.

to enhance more balanced development, strengthen cooperation and increase financial aid to developing countries and move toward sustainable consumption and production patterns in ways that preserve social cohesion.

Obey us. But don't get ahead of us. We're in charge here.

The Socialist International recognizes that positive elements for a new global agenda already partially exist in:



the Millennium Development goals adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2000


the Monterrey Consensus that agreed in early 2002 a commitment to improve financial instruments for development


the Plan for Sustainable Development adopted at the World Summit in Johannesburg in 2002


the Development Round of negotiations in international trade launched in Doha in 2001, with a commitment to focus more on developing countries.

We love you guys! Join us!

These positive elements should be fully supported. Nonetheless, efforts to fulfil the these commitments have been frustrated because:

development goals have been pushed aside with the argument that security concerns must be given priority

narrow self-interest continues to undermine the Doha Development Round, most recently in Cancun, where egoism

I wish.

and the drive to protect markets in developed countries, particularly for agriculture, led to a collapse of negotiations

All too true. The unions screwed you.

not enough progress has been made on changing the so-called Washington Consensus, and developing countries have not yet been given a powerful enough voice in the Bretton Woods institutions that remain unable to adequately respond to development challenges or manage financial crises and economic downturns.

Consensus is always a house of cards if it doesn't take place in an election or a legislative vote.

The Socialist International recognises that the obstacles to more balanced global economy and a more just world are more political than technical and therefore must be overcome through political efforts. The International therefore embraces a global agenda for sustainable development that includes the following ten points, all crucial for guaranteeing that globalisation works for all:

i) International trade as an engine for growth and employment must include unhindered access to markets in the developed world for exports from developing countries, especially agricultural and other labour-intensive products, also taking into account that most of farmers are women.

True, but are most farmers really women? I suppose most human beings are female.

ii) The current digital divide must

By fiat, force and/or magic.

be turned into international digital opportunities for all, men and women. Knowledge is becoming the main source of wealth, but can also be the main source of inequalities. Developing countries therefore must leapfrog into the digital economy and the North should help them by launching an inclusion plan for the developing world involving public-private partnerships and technological transfers.

Like I said, fiat, force and magic. Look, this can be done by charity, but charity is always sustainable: the geese lay golden eggs as they can. You can't cut them open to speed up the process.

iii) Turning sustainable development into growth opportunities, by fostering ongoing and undertaking new initiatives to promote environmentally sustainable development in agriculture, energy and transport, and tapping into the employment opportunities this would create.


iv) Adopting a fresh approach to development policies that would combine new trade opportunities, incentives for foreign investment, promoting entrepreneurship, building national productive capacity and social infrastructure and increasing accountability.

That's exactly what free trade and killing corporate welfare (including direct subsidies, grants of monopolies, high tariffs and other interventionist/protectionist measures) would get you.

In developing countries, the stabilisation policies should allow greater fiscal flexibility for investment and enhanced spending, particularly on education, health and social development. At the same time, debt relief must be accelerated and development aid expanded,

"Money for nothin' and your chicks for free."

as decided in the UN (0.7% of GNP), in connection with a concerted poverty reduction strategy.

Also known as Hocus Pocus. If you Big Government types had any idea how to reduce poverty, we'd see some evidence of it by now.

v) Instituting better regulation, accountability and supervision of financial systems to enhance the prospects for sustainable growth and development.

S__t. See previous note.

vi) Investing in people by raising educational levels and providing training for all and incorporating advanced teaching techniques to guarantee the most skilled work force possible. Information technologies should play a key role in improving the quality of education and creating new employment opportunities.

Kind of micromanaging aren't you?

vii) Providing adequate and efficient quality healthcare for all with special attention to women and women's reproductive rights which should be protected from any kind of intimidation. Access to life-saving and essential medicines must be a priority in order to combat contagious diseases worldwide.


viii) Fostering employability and a more skilled and versatile work force through active labour market policies that would include efforts against all forms of discrimination and providing greater assistance and training for the working poor to upgrade their skill levels. A safety net for social protection has proved to be crucial for people struggling to adapt to change. Specific strategies are needed for the informal economy. Better integration policies and better cooperation between host and origin countries are necessary to humanise migration flows.

Never relinquish centralized control, but always expand it.

ix) Tackling drug related crime and money laundering by strengthening international cooperation with shared responsibility, reducing both supply and demand, involving civil society in preventing and treating drug use and providing technological and trade support to alternative productions in poor countries.

...always expand itx)

Placing greater emphasis on the provision of global public services, especially with regard to sanitation, health care, child care facilities, education, employment promotion and environmental protection. The principle of public service cannot be sacrificed to the consecration of the market. Tax systems should also be adapted to promote better public services and a new global tax should be created to fund the global public goods.

That's what the Second Amendment is all about.

8. For the Socialist International, the following mandates represent a clear test of the political will to ensure a fairer and more just global economy and where the gender perspective should also be included.

The cancellation of the debt of the poorest countries, subject to minimum conditions of good governance and going further than the ineffective HIPC programme.

And don't forget that gender perspective.

The unilateral opening of markets in the developed world to exports from the poorest countries.

You said that before...wait! Unilateral?! Well, it worked for Britain in the nineteenth century.

The establishment of a Committee and a Fund against Hunger, within the United Nations System, as proposed by President Lula.

Gotta suck up to him!

A radical change of policy on agricultural subsidies in Europe, the United States and Japan, putting an end to this unacceptable distortion of markets that remains one of the principle obstacles to development in the South.

Absolutely! But it's not a socialist thing, it's a free market thing.

The abolition of offshore tax havens, which constitute not only a fiscal injustice but are also - through lack of regulation, transparency and accountability - a key factor in the financing and proliferation of terrorism, drug trafficking, trafficking in women and organised crime, and provide shelter for non-democratic regimes to escape from punishment for their corrupt behaviour.

No, no, no, no, no. Your taxes are too high, your regulations are too tight, and you've banned too many victimless activities for your police to deal with so they don't have the resources to catch true victimizers.

A substantial increase in public development assistance, which continues to fall unacceptably short of previously agreed targets. The support to the World Fund for Solidarity which was recently adopted by the United Nations General Assembly.

I already said what I thought about the U. N.

A sustained international commitment to rectifying the great scandal of our time - the situation in Sub-Saharan Africa. That region is not only the principle victim of the adverse effects of globalisation, but it also remains excluded from the benefits, while being abandoned to war, poverty, hunger, debt and death.

Of course, nobody there could take responsibility. There are no responsible people there.

The NEPAD initiative begun by a number of African countries, which links development to respect for democracy and good governance, deserves much stronger support than it has received thus far.

That could be good. I'll have to check that out.

9. Critical to the prospects for worldwide sustainable development is a deep transformation of governance at all levels - international, regional, national and local - including:

Better governance through greater transparency and accountability and a higher quality of political decision-making and policy formulation, including stronger women participation. At least one third should be female politicians.

The latter hardly guarantees the former.

Enhanced participation of the various stakeholders of the civil society.

What did Bork say about the Tenth Amendment? It was a "mere tautology"? Would that it were so, in that case, but this portends ill. They mean "chosen" (not necessarily elected by the people) representatives of stakeholder collectives.

More extensive interaction between national and international levels of governance, particularly through the process of regional integration

None of those nasty national borders.

10. With regard to reform of governance at the global level, the Socialist International is deeply committed to working for:



The establishment of a UN Security Council on the Economy, Society and the Environment - in effect, a Council for Sustainable Development - that would coordinate sustainable development on a global scale,

A Cabrini Green in every locale! Don't step on the grass!

push forward effective responses to inequality

Down with the Technocrats!

and financial volatility and promote economic growth and job expansion. This Council, composed in much more representative terms than the current Security Council,

Down with the U.S.!

should be entitled to make the main choices regarding the coordination of the multilateral organisations in the financial, economic, social and environmental areas. This Council would hold meetings at different levels, including annual summits of heads of state and government together with the top managers of international agencies and organisations.


Reform of the Bretton Woods system and revision of the Washington consensus to include greater democratic control of international institutions, better representation of the developing world and rules of conditionality that take into account not only financial stability and market liberalisation, which should be applied more leniently, but also the economic and social needs of national populations. A world financial authority should have real supervisory and regulatory powers, enabling it to guarantee the transparency of financial markets through compliance with effective codes of conduct.

Ah, cut your taxes!

The strengthening of international environmental governance, building on existing institutions, the United Nations Environment Programme, and establishing a World Environment Organisation, WEO, to promote the implementation of existing agreements and treaties such as the Kyoto Protocol, draft new ones, formulate policy and compile reliable information on the actual state of the world's environment.

I didn't vote for the U. N. ambassador or anybody else in the State Department.

A greater role and stronger intervention capability for the International Labour Organisation.

Really?

A new equilibrium in the way economic, social and environmental issues are addressed by international institutions, rooted in a more democratic, transparent and balanced process. The WTO, the ILO and the new WEO should work together to ensure that trade is both free and fair, to reject new forms of protectionism, to preserve cultural identity and diversity and to enforce core labour standards and promote sustainable development policies worldwide.

"Enforce core labour standards"? Whose core labor standards? Core to whom and for what? as Ayn Rand might say.

11. The Socialist International views regional integration as a key instrument to promote sustainable development, combine social cohesion with competitiveness and shape a better architecture of international relations.

Who asked ya?

As the experience of the European Union indicates, regional integration cannot be limited simply to free trade.

Big government failed, so we need bigger big government.

It must integrate political, social, economic and environmental dimensions, so that open inter-regionalism can become a powerful tool for achieving better global governance. In this context, the SI fully supports the efforts to promote integration in Latin America in all the referred dimensions, also as an instrument to consolidate democracy and overcome conflict.

12. Humanity has reached a crossroads.

What else is new?

The present world order, marked by unilateralism,

Who? You mean us?

disrespect for human rights,

That ain't us.

social injustice and unequal development is reaching its limit.

So Marx said. His solution proved a chimera. Ours didn't. It's called: the free and natural growth of human knowledge.

Building a New World Order based on multilateralism, democracy, respect for human rights and sustainable development is therefore necessary and increasingly demanded by citizens of nations both women and men, throughout both the North and South. The Socialist International is committed to the enormous political work required to build a better world and calls on all progressive and democratic women and men to join in the effort through a truly global alliance.

Christ! I thought it'd never end.


Back to the top | Back to main page



| SI News online | Socialist Affairs online | Congresses | Councils | Campaigns |

| Press Releases | Committees and Working Groups |



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Socialist International, Maritime House, Old Town, Clapham, London, SW4 0JW, United Kingdom
Tel: +44 20 76 27 44 49; Fax: +44 20 77 20 44 48/74 98 12 93; e-mail: secretariat@socialistinternational.org

But, what I really want to do

is fisk the Declaration of Sao Paolo.

XXII Congress of the Socialist International

SÃo Paulo, 27-29 October 2003


Declaration of SÃo Paulo

1. The Socialist International, the global movement of social democratic, socialist and labour parties, holding its XXII Congress in São Paulo at the invitation of the Partido dos Trabalhadores, calls on all socially and politically progressive people

Who want to ossify society within an unbreakable government shell.

and organisations to come together in a global coalition to promote a new world order based on a new multilateralism for peace, security,

Yes, talking is better than killing.

sustainable development,

I'm working for sustainable government.

social justice,

Making sure people get what they truly earn is social and it is just.

democracy,

You mean centralized control by unremovable, incumbent politicians.

respect for human rights and gender equality.

I'm with ya. Bring all those barbarian states up to US levels with regard to respect for the individual.

2. The intense globalisation process, of markets and economies as well as technology, communications and cultural exchange, has accelerated for some the creation of wealth and increases in productivity and trade — but at an unacceptable cost: the widening of the gap between rich and poor countries, and between rich people and poor people in countries of both the North and the South.

The rich countries do the first clause of this point, the poor countries are ruled by tyrants and/or gangsters who tax, regulate and otherwise punish all free activity within their borders.

At the same time, the world is witnessing ever greater threats to peace, the emergence and deepening of regional conflicts, the possible connection of terrorism and the spread of weapons of mass destruction, the revival of religious fundamentalism, exacerbated nationalism, increasing racist and xenophobic attitudes and all forms of discrimination.

I missed the ad campaign for those things. I guess Madison Avenue either failed here or is running a stealth campaign to force us to buy hatred.

3. The current system of global governance, established in the aftermath of the World War II, needs reform to be able to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

Yeah, dump it.

Neoconservatives are attempting to exploit the situation to dismantle all forms of global governance, to minimise the role of the United Nations, to undermine multilateral institutions, to promote unilateralism and the consecration of the market,

I don't know if there are neocons in Europe, but the ones I know want the U.S. to take over the world, yes. As a libertarian, I with 'em up to the imperialist part. I want the U.S. to live according to its constitution and try to persuade others that this is the way to go. Neocons btw are more Corporatist than Capitalist, they like government run of, by and for big business. The Market is not consecrated by subsidies for the rich. It is desecrated by them.

and to impose the will of the powerful to decide the future of mankind.

As opposed to the weak and ignorant? The weak never lead anything, no matter what your rhetoric states, and the ignorant lead all to often. When they get powerful. Although, anyone who thinks Marx was a great economist....

We need to improve the work of the international community, to modernise and strengthen multilateral institutions to further our collective interests.

Those of us who showed up here at this Congress.

The International is steadfastly working to mobilise all the world's progressives to define and implement a comprehensive strategy for sustainable development and reform of the global system of governance. The goal is to shape globalisation so that it provides opportunity for all, making world markets work for everyone and to establish an effective system of multilateral governance, based on the rule of law and a more balanced, more just architecture of international relations, with a reformed and modernised United Nations as its cornerstone.

International anarchy would be better. Hell, American neocon imperialism would be better.

As was the case after World War II, a new vision is needed based on the enforcement of international law, more effective regulation of world markets and more democratic, accountable and efficient global institutions to formulate and carry out policies on behalf of people everywhere.

Democratic accountability will never be efficient. The free market is efficient. I get to choose what I want based on what I can produce to trade for it. Oh, sorry, that's Say's law. The socialists want everybody in the world to vote on what I can have for breakfast. [Oh, they don't really mean that.]4.

The international community must be able to act to preserve and enforce peace, promote security and guarantee respect for fundamental human rights, including their full enjoyment by women and girls, wherever they are threatened or under attack. Intervention, however, must be based on clear evidence and criteria, as well as adherence to international law that combine respect for both the sovereignty of nations and the sovereignty of their citizens, and must be carried out in accordance with the decisions of the United Nations.

Jesus Christ. The UN gets to vote on which bureaucrat will slap my wrist.

The International therefore believes that reform of the United Nations cannot be delayed any longer and will continue to be strongly engaged in the process. Achieving lasting peace and security requires that the United Nations Charter be updated to meet today's new challenges, and that the Security Council be reformed to make it more representative, democratic and responsive.

Get your own Security Council.

5. Peace is not simply the absence of war, but the result of international relations that are well managed and coordinated on the basis of fairness, justice and a commitment to the common good. This is particularly important when addressing the growing threat of terrorism.


The condemnation of terrorism must be unconditional. There can be no excuses, for nothing, not even the poverty and injustice endured by so many people today, can justify terrorist acts.


However, confronting terrorism cannot come at the cost of sacrificing freedom and human rights, or through the double standard of supporting so-called friendly dictatorships. It must also be remembered that justice, social cohesion and cultural and religious tolerance remain important factors in promoting peace and stability at the local, national and global levels, and for making it more difficult for terrorists to recruit desperate people into their groups.

That's what Bush says.

6. The global divide between poverty and wealth has reached intolerable proportions

Try freedom

and the mounting pressure on natural resources

Try privatizing them.

makes the current model of globalisation unsustainable.

The model that works is no model. Give up trying to control the future.

Social inequality is worsening and undermining the stability of societies in more and more countries. And while the percentage of the world's population living in absolute poverty is declining, the number of people struggling to survive in such poverty has never been higher, as nearly three billion people now live on less than two dollars per day, most of them being women.

It's lunch time. I'll post this and be back.

At the same time, the benefits of expanding global trade and foreign direct investment remain mostly in the North. For hundreds of millions of workers, basic labour and social rights remain a distant dream and a privilege of those in wealthy nations. Most people in the world lack any form of social protection, while a small minority in many poorer countries enjoy enormous wealth.


The Socialist International therefore believes that a central challenge for our world today is to make it possible for developing countries to catch up, but without endangering the global ecological balance. This must be the basis of a global program for sustainable development in three dimensions — economic, social and environmental.


7. For the Socialist International a comprehensive and balanced strategy for sustainable development must be based on a New Global Deal, which would require that:



developing countries improve their integration in the global economy, build their national capacity in institutional, economic, technological and educational terms, fight against poverty, improve working conditions as well as the access of women to the labour market, and control major ecological imbalances.


developed countries open their markets to exports from developing countries, encourage good investment in poorer parts of the World to enhance more balanced development, strengthen cooperation and increase financial aid to developing countries and move toward sustainable consumption and production patterns in ways that preserve social cohesion.


The Socialist International recognises that positive elements for a new global agenda already partially exist in:



the Millennium Development goals adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2000


the Monterrey Consensus that agreed in early 2002 a commitment to improve financial instruments for development


the Plan for Sustainable Development adopted at the World Summit in Johannesburg in 2002


the Development Round of negotiations in international trade launched in Doha in 2001, with a commitment to focus more on developing countries.


These positive elements should be fully supported. Nonetheless, efforts to fulfil the these commitments have been frustrated because:



development goals have been pushed aside with the argument that security concerns must be given priority


narrow self-interest continues to undermine the Doha Development Round, most recently in Cancún, where egoism and the drive to protect markets in developed countries, particularly for agriculture, led to a collapse of negotiations


not enough progress has been made on changing the so-called Washington Consensus, and developing countries have not yet been given a powerful enough voice in the Bretton Woods institutions that remain unable to adequately respond to development challenges or manage financial crises and economic downturns.


The Socialist International recognises that the obstacles to more balanced global economy and a more just world are more political than technical and therefore must be overcome through political efforts. The International therefore embraces a global agenda for sustainable development that includes the following ten points, all crucial for guaranteeing that globalisation works for all:



i) International trade as an engine for growth and employment must include unhindered access to markets in the developed world for exports from developing countries, especially agricultural and other labour-intensive products, also taking into account that most of farmers are women.


ii) The current digital divide must be turned into international digital opportunities for all, men and women. Knowledge is becoming the main source of wealth, but can also be the main source of inequalities. Developing countries therefore must leapfrog into the digital economy and the North should help them by launching an inclusion plan for the developing world involving public-private partnerships and technological transfers.


iii) Turning sustainable development into growth opportunities, by fostering ongoing and undertaking new initiatives to promote environmentally sustainable development in agriculture, energy and transport, and tapping into the employment opportunities this would create.


iv) Adopting a fresh approach to development policies that would combine new trade opportunities, incentives for foreign investment, promoting entrepreneurship, building national productive capacity and social infrastructure and increasing accountability. In developing countries, the stabilisation policies should allow greater fiscal flexibility for investment and enhanced spending, particularly on education, health and social development. At the same time, debt relief must be accelerated and development aid expanded, as decided in the UN (0.7% of GNP), in connection with a concerted poverty reduction strategy.


v) Instituting better regulation, accountability and supervision of financial systems to enhance the prospects for sustainable growth and development.


vi) Investing in people by raising educational levels and providing training for all and incorporating advanced teaching techniques to guarantee the most skilled work force possible. Information technologies should play a key role in improving the quality of education and creating new employment opportunities.


vii) Providing adequate and efficient quality healthcare for all with special attention to women and women's reproductive rights which should be protected from any kind of intimidation. Access to life-saving and essential medicines must be a priority in order to combat contagious diseases worldwide.


viii) Fostering employability and a more skilled and versatile work force through active labour market policies that would include efforts against all forms of discrimination and providing greater assistance and training for the working poor to upgrade their skill levels. A safety net for social protection has proved to be crucial for people struggling to adapt to change. Specific strategies are needed for the informal economy. Better integration policies and better cooperation between host and origin countries are necessary to humanise migration flows.


ix) Tackling drug related crime and money laundering by strengthening international cooperation with shared responsibility, reducing both supply and demand, involving civil society in preventing and treating drug use and providing technological and trade support to alternative productions in poor countries.


x) Placing greater emphasis on the provision of global public services, especially with regard to sanitation, health care, child care facilities, education, employment promotion and environmental protection. The principle of public service cannot be sacrificed to the consecration of the market. Tax systems should also be adapted to promote better public services and a new global tax should be created to fund the global public goods.


8. For the Socialist International, the following mandates represent a clear test of the political will to ensure a fairer and more just global economy and where the gender perspective should also be included.



The cancellation of the debt of the poorest countries, subject to minimum conditions of good governance and going further than the ineffective HIPC programme.


The unilateral opening of markets in the developed world to exports from the poorest countries.


The establishment of a Committee and a Fund against Hunger, within the United Nations System, as proposed by President Lula.


A radical change of policy on agricultural subsidies in Europe, the United States and Japan, putting an end to this unacceptable distortion of markets that remains one of the principle obstacles to development in the South.


The abolition of offshore tax havens, which constitute not only a fiscal injustice but are also — through lack of regulation, transparency and accountability — a key factor in the financing and proliferation of terrorism, drug trafficking, trafficking in women and organised crime, and provide shelter for non-democratic regimes to escape from punishment for their corrupt behaviour.


A substantial increase in public development assistance, which continues to fall unacceptably short of previously agreed targets. The support to the World Fund for Solidarity which was recently adopted by the United Nations General Assembly.


A sustained international commitment to rectifying the great scandal of our time — the situation in Sub-Saharan Africa. That region is not only the principle victim of the adverse effects of globalisation, but it also remains excluded from the benefits, while being abandoned to war, poverty, hunger, debt and death. The NEPAD initiative begun by a number of African countries, which links development to respect for democracy and good governance, deserves much stronger support than it has received thus far.


9. Critical to the prospects for worldwide sustainable development is a deep transformation of governance at all levels — international, regional, national and local — including:



Better governance through greater transparency and accountability and a higher quality of political decision-making and policy formulation, including stronger women participation. At least one third should be female politicians.


Enhanced participation of the various stakeholders of the civil society.


More extensive interaction between national and international levels of governance, particularly through the process of regional integration


10. With regard to reform of governance at the global level, the Socialist International is deeply committed to working for:



The establishment of a UN Security Council on the Economy, Society and the Environment — in effect, a Council for Sustainable Development — that would coordinate sustainable development on a global scale, push forward effective responses to inequality and financial volatility and promote economic growth and job expansion. This Council, composed in much more representative terms than the current Security Council, should be entitled to make the main choices regarding the coordination of the multilateral organisations in the financial, economic, social and environmental areas. This Council would hold meetings at different levels, including annual summits of heads of state and government together with the top managers of international agencies and organisations.


Reform of the Bretton Woods system and revision of the Washington consensus to include greater democratic control of international institutions, better representation of the developing world and rules of conditionality that take into account not only financial stability and market liberalisation, which should be applied more leniently, but also the economic and social needs of national populations. A world financial authority should have real supervisory and regulatory powers, enabling it to guarantee the transparency of financial markets through compliance with effective codes of conduct.


The strengthening of international environmental governance, building on existing institutions, the United Nations Environment Programme, and establishing a World Environment Organisation, WEO, to promote the implementation of existing agreements and treaties such as the Kyoto Protocol, draft new ones, formulate policy and compile reliable information on the actual state of the world’s environment.


A greater role and stronger intervention capability for the International Labour Organisation.


A new equilibrium in the way economic, social and environmental issues are addressed by international institutions, rooted in a more democratic, transparent and balanced process. The WTO, the ILO and the new WEO should work together to ensure that trade is both free and fair, to reject new forms of protectionism, to preserve cultural identity and diversity and to enforce core labour standards and promote sustainable development policies worldwide.


11. The Socialist International views regional integration as a key instrument to promote sustainable development, combine social cohesion with competitiveness and shape a better architecture of international relations. As the experience of the European Union indicates, regional integration cannot be limited simply to free trade. It must integrate political, social, economic and environmental dimensions, so that open inter-regionalism can become a powerful tool for achieving better global governance. In this context, the SI fully supports the efforts to promote integration in Latin America in all the referred dimensions, also as an instrument to consolidate democracy and overcome conflict.


12. Humanity has reached a crossroads. The present world order, marked by unilateralism, disrespect for human rights, social injustice and unequal development is reaching its limit. Building a New World Order based on multilateralism, democracy, respect for human rights and sustainable development is therefore necessary and increasingly demanded by citizens of nations both women and men, throughout both the North and South. The Socialist International is committed to the enormous political work required to build a better world and calls on all progressive and democratic women and men to join in the effort through a truly global alliance.




Back to the top | Back to main page



| SI News online | Socialist Affairs online | Congresses | Councils | Campaigns |

| Press Releases | Committees and Working Groups |



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Socialist International, Maritime House, Old Town, Clapham, London, SW4 0JW, United Kingdom
Tel: +44 20 76 27 44 49; Fax: +44 20 77 20 44 48/74 98 12 93; e-mail: secretariat@socialistinternational.org

I already deleted, after reading it, my Liberator Online.

Actually, I get it at home too. I'll update with links after work.

Anyway, they linked me to the Socialist International website. Their point was that Tony Blair is a veep of that organization. He didn't show up and was elected in absentia. I'm not overly concerned about that, I think that the cause of the Clinton economic expansion was, besides the monetary bubble, his apparently unshakable belief in global capitalism. The giant sucking sound doesn't really seem to be hurting us. I would say quite the opposite, but I won't elaborate on the analogy. Ricardo's Law of Association was right again. Of course, if you're a union guy, your exploitation of us non-union guys via special protections and privileges from the government for your industries is ending. Of course, a guy like Clinton, or Blair, would just want to globalize all that as well.

Compassionate Conservatism means never having to say Veto.

There's your bumper sticker of the day.

Think about this, from L. Neil Smith

Science fiction writer extraordinaire:

The Mercury program came and went, the Gemini program came and went, the Apollo program came and went, followed by SkyLab, the Shuttle program, and the International so-called Space Station. What they all taught us (unless you actually care about fruitfly reproduction in microgravity) was that the only individuals who would ever be allowed to get into space were precisely the kind of government-approved jockstraps who were on the varsity football team when you were in high school — oh yes, and an occasional cheerleader — oops, make that public school teacher.

To all the rest of us, meaning those who are "encouraged" (at the point of a gun) to pay for these programs, the message was clear: "Get lost. Outer space, 99.99999999999999999999999999999999 percent of all there is, is government property, like the Lincoln Monument and Area 51."
....
Government property, eh? Let's privatize it.

Kantian philosopher Kelly Ross says,

“Whether it is called ‘permissiveness’ by the Right or ‘consumerism’ by the Left, the exuberance of popular culture, especially its vulgarity, garishness, frivolity, and eroticism, is a profound challenge to the anaesthetic moralism that characterizes the mentality of those who would like to be, or are accustomed to be, telling others what kinds of worthy things they ought to be doing.”

Moralism is a technical term meaning the extension of moral judgment into activities requiring only ethical, aesthetic or practical judgment. Morality is properly concerned with actions, intentions and consequences involving harm to others and oneself. Ethics are such things as manners and conventions, activities which improve or harm relationships and prosperity. Aesthetics is about beauty and quality. Practical judgment is simply about what works, into which any of the previous categories may fall.

Here's a verbatim copy of a post from

Human Liberty.

10/25/2003
More On Zealots

I love when zealots say that they have some claim over my body because someday their tax money might pay for my health care, presumably through Medicare or Medicaid. I think it's unhealthy to not eat meat, so I demand that you eat chicken. Ben and Jerry's ice cream is fattening; Ben and Jerry are proof. I demand that no one eat it.

I want to opt-out henceforth from all taxpayer-funded health care. Where do I do that? Because I would rather die than give you a claim over my life.

Thanks. I feel better now.
Comment (0)
// posted by Brendan @ 9:03 PM


That's what I say.

And here's a person being truly honest.

Or honestly true.

Destroy all straw men!

This post says what I think.

I am a member of the Libertarian Party, but I see the need for The Free Country to defend itself against unfree countries.

Here's a new guy who's all right.

His current events commentary kicks butt on mine.

Here are some exerpts from Cato's Letters

sent to me by the Mises.org folks:
Cato's Letters
By liberty, I understand the power which every man has over his own actions, and his right to enjoy the fruits of his labor, art and industry, as far as by it he hurts not the society, or any members of it, by taking from any member, or hindering him from enjoying what he himself enjoys. The fruits of a man's honest industry are the just rewards of it, ascertained to him by natural and eternal equity, as is his title to use them in the manner which he thinks fit: And thus, with the above limitations, every man is sole lord and arbiter of his own private actions and property...no man living can divest him but by usurpation, or by his own consent.
....
True and impartial liberty is therefore the right of every man to pursue the natural, reasonable, and religious dictates of his own mind; to think what he will, to act as he thinks, provided he acts not to the prejudice of another; to spend his own money himself, and lay out the produce of his labor his own way; and to labor for his own pleasure and profits, and not for others who are idle, and would live...by pillaging and oppressing him, and those that are like him...

The Witless Battle Over General Boykin

(Actually, the article is not there yet. Sign up for Reports from the Front. They'll email it out to you. Over on the right side there.)
By David Kelley

"The problem here is not intolerance, divisiveness, or extremism. It is rank
irrationality. The whole exchange is another tiresome example of a false
dichotomy: dogmatism vs. relativism. Conservatives are right that liberals are
afraid to assert the truth of their convictions. Liberals are right that
conservatives are claiming truth for sectarian religious dogmas—and rightly
alarmed that they invoke those dogmas to justify war.

"What both sides ignore is the alternative of reason and rational certainty. When
Islamic terrorists attack us out of hatred for our secular way of life, our
pursuit of happiness, our wealth and productive achievements, it is reason, not
Jesus, that tells us they are viciously wrong. And reason does tell us that they
are wrong, objectively wrong, and that we are objectively right in responding
with force."

The next two paragraphs begin with these phrases: "Earth to General Boykin..." and
"Earth to Ellen Goodman...." Read the whole thing.

Johan Norberg, In Defense of Global Capitalism

Buy it here.

Chapter: Democratization.

Paragraph 1:

The accelerating spread of information and ideas throughout the world, coupled with rising education standards and growing prosperity, is prompting demands for genuine political rights. Critics of globalization maintain that a dynamic market and international capital are a threat to democracy, but what they really see threatened is the use that they would like to make of democracy. Never before in human history have democracy, universal suffrage, and the free formation of opinion been as widespread as they are today.

Emphasis Norberg's.

Steven den Beste today

"Is it immoral to be prepared to do evil things if through your willingness and preparation you avoid the need to do so and also prevent someone else from doing the same evil thing?"

"...Deterrence is a real moral problem. In some cases it's the only way to bring about the best possible case, but the only way you can have a deterrent is by being willing to commit tremendously evil acts."

Sorry, got interrupted.

I actually have a job and a life. No offense to those who don't.

The majority of individuals within the borders of a country have the power to do as they wish, limited only by what they believe is possible and the Laws of Nature (or, what really is possible). What I'm saying is that the government is not the only means available for society, or any subset thereof--majority or minority, to get its way.

Indeed, most people get their way most of the time by earning the means and doing it themselves.

Lew Rockwell has this to say today.

"In the war on terrorism, we’re dealing with the oldest political error: the belief that because everyone wants something (e.g. security and defense), government should or must provide it. If the error is pervasive, the result is the total state. If it is completely uprooted, the result is the purely free society."

Lew Rockwell is the mentor for those of us who desire to be Austrian economists. I always take his commentary seriously. I do wish I felt the same about his good friend Justin Raimondo, but Raimondo is the James Carville of the Peace Party. If he were elected Chairman of the Peace Party the world would be a better place, but Noam Chomsky or Ralph Nader would probably get that job first. Well, we don't need to build a metaphor into an allegory....

I would say that if Society wants something, "it" may use whatever means it has at its disposal to get it. Unfortunately, due to the constant conflation by pundits of society and government, people keep thinking that if the government doesn't do a thing nobody will. Frederic Bastiat and Tom Paine blew that crap out of the water 155 and 227 years ago respectively.

Of course, one must have the temerity to question the wisdom of the experts.

I was also thinking about humility.

Humility

I define it as the willingness to learn. Not the subjection of my will to another.
I would venture to say that no one ever learned anything without humbling himself. One must humble himself before the facts... before the laws of nature and nature's God as it were. And those whose knowledge may exceed ours.

Unfortunately, before we do our studies, we seldom know who the true masters are.

Holy Mackeral! A whole week!

I was just over here checking out the Angry Economist, while I was looking over a book about the FDA hearings back in '95, and I had the thought: the assumption of innocence may just be the primary reason for the prosperity of western societies. We just don't go around assuming that our neighbor got his stuff illegitimately. And attacking him to take it away. Much. Yet.

The more that goes on in a society, the poorer it is. How do I write the grant to check that theory out? Tom Sowell's probably done it already. Well, it can't be repeated enough. Of course, it's probably buried in Human Action. Mary Ruwart pretty much says it in Healing Our World, and I wouldn't be surprised to find it as the major theme in Johan Norberg's In Defense of Global Capitalism.

What the hell's the html code for "new paragraph".

I just realized what I was doing wrong with that header up above. By the way, you can find that quote in the big article A New Name for an Old Whig over at the Center for Independent Studies, who work out of Australia as I recall. Hell, I've got the window open... http://www.cis.org.au. There's a hint.

I just added Libertarianism.com to my links.

I figure some basic info wouldn't hurt.

I've been working hard, researching, family manning and freeping.

And where's it got me? Right here. Check out Pejman Yousefzadeh (thank God for the right clicker) at TechCentralStation. His article The Nobel Freedom Prize is about the fact that the most deserving Nobel Peace Prize winners weren't fighting for Peace but Freedom.

The fact that peace can exist both under conditions of freedom or of oppression indicates that peace is not the primary goal to aim for.

How come nobody mentioned this?

I guess I heard about it, but nobody pumped it enthusiastically. Not conservatives, not libertarians, not Republicans....

I guess I don't listen to Hugh Hewitt enough.

KSTP let me down.

Den Beste's got an interesting point.

The Europeans want the US to participate in "fruitful dialogue" on abolition of the death penalty. What's there to talk about? They don't use capital punishment, we do. They don't like it, and we don't care what they think. They want us to stop using capital punishment, and when they say fruitful dialogue they mean that we accept their point of view and stop executing people.

CapMag's blog Dollars and Crosses reminded me of Amity Schlaes.

I phrased that wrong somehow, but here's what she said on the 30th:

If Iraq is to become another Germany and not a Libya, it needs to write laws and establish institutions that make it an inviting place for capital. That at least is what happened in Germany, where an unknown - the economist Ludwig Erhard - worked with the Allies to create a classically liberal programme after the second world war. Erhard then promoted the plan like crazy over the radio. At times, there were tensions between occupied and occupier; but in the end the result was strong: wage and price controls and high taxes were all swept away. In the long run, Erhard's liberal vision and his laws mattered more than Washington's cash; gross domestic product trebled in a decade.

When she says liberal, she means it in the true sense--having to do with freedom, not the American sense where it is a euphemism for socialist.

A sample of stuff from The Mises Institute.

THEORY AND HISTORY
Introduction by Ludwig von Mises


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Methodological Dualism

MORTAL MAN does not know how the universe and all that it contains may appear to a superhuman intelligence. Perhaps such an exalted mind is in a position to elaborate a coherent and comprehensive monistic interpretation of all phenomena. Man--up to now, at least--has always gone lamentably amiss in his attempts to bridge the gulf that he sees yawning between mind and matter, between the rider and the horse, between the mason and the stone. It would be preposterous to view this failure as a sufficient demonstration of the soundness of a. dualistic philosophy. All that we can infer from it is that science-at least for the time being-must adopt a dualistic approach, less as a philosophical explanation than as a methodological device.

Methodological dualism refrains from any proposition concerning essences and metaphysical constructs. It merely takes into account the fact that we do not know how external events -- physical, chemical, and physiological -- affect human thoughts, ideas, and judgments of value. This ignorance splits the realm of knowledge into two separate fields, the realm of external events, commonly called nature, and the realm of human thought and action.

Older ages looked upon the issue from a moral or religious point of view. Materialist monism was rejected as incompatible with the Christian dualism of the Creator and the creation, and of the immortal soul and the mortal body. Determinism was rejected as incompatible with the fundamental principles of morality as well as with the penal code. Most of what was advanced in these controversies to support the respective dogmas was unessential and is irrelevant from the methodological point of view of our day. The determinists did little more than repeat their thesis again and again, without trying to substantiate it. The indeterminists denied their adversaries' statements but were unable to strike at their weak points. The long debates were not very helpful.

All right, maybe the bourgeoisie can go too far.

Good Lord.

The Elder writes like Tom Paine.

More genius from somebody else.

The Elder from FratersLibertas says:

Nearly everyone acknowledges that there is a role for government. It's the size and cost of the role that is the matter of debate. The point is not whether we do it all on our own but that we all should have to do at least SOME of it on our own and not rely on the government to do it for you. The government need not be the villain, but it usually isn't the hero either.

Powerline on The Liberty Bell

"The Liberty Bell was little known until it was shown to a group of abolitionists in the 1830's. They were struck by the universality of its Biblical message and it was they who named it the Liberty Bell. The bell became famous because a prominent abolitionist newspaper put the bell and its inscription on the paper's masthead.

"The Liberty Bell is an inspiring symbol. But there are those in America who do not want Americans to be inspired, and they control most of our institutions. Given the chance, they will devalue every one of our national symbols."

Fair Housing Laws must be destroyed.

How would Cato the Elder have said that?

Ayn Rand was right. The only thing wrong with the U.S. Constitution is that there is no article clearly stating that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of Commerce, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, nor shall Congress openly tacitly delegate any power to legislate not granted to it by the Constitution in plain, clear language to the administrative branch, nor usurped by the courts. The courts' decisions need more oversight by Congress.

Most of our poverty is caused by local, state and federal prohibitions on free commerce for poor people. Usually emplaced to competition with Big Business, Big Labor and Big Government. Welfare is a bribe to those who are hurt to shut up and go away.

Oh, hey!

I meant to link this article at World Net Daily. And share this bit of genius with you:

"And note that it's covetousness, not drug use, that wraps up the Ten Commandments. Jealousy and envy are far more dangerous to society than funny cigarettes or little blue pills. So if it makes sense to go after drugs in the effort to save society, then it's equally sensible to send cops to round up all the envy-pushers on Madison Ave. and in the halls of Congress."

Now, as a Bourgeois Philistine (I just spell checked this, and the only problem spell checker found was "and" after "Ave.". You think the machine knows how to spell Bourgeois?) I take exception to the equation of Ad-men and politicians. If you think something's crap, don't buy it. There's no force involved here. You are responsible to yourself, your loved ones and your God for how you steward your resources. You are not a victim! Politicians, however, have the force of law and the guns of government to make you obey their whims.

Miller's fully aware of the latter point. Read, as they say, the whole thing. RTWT.

There's another wonderful article at WND today, by Jim Babka.

Hah! The wife's out of town with the kid!

So what's the first thing I do? I head to the liquor store!
Hahahahahahahaha...

I bought a twelve pack of O'Doul's. Hey! I like the stuff. Listen, I gained 50 lbs. drinkin' the real stuff over the past several years. In the last two months, I'm drinkin' almost a six pack a day of O'Doul's and I've lost 20. Or 25 if hitting 270 wasn't just a fluky reading one day.
That right there is a huge motivator to me to stay sober.

And O'Doul's is like sour pop. I like it better than any sweet stuff. I tried LaBatt's Nordic the other day. It's good, but not enough...I don't think it's better. Certainly not for the price. Doesn't anybody sell this stuff by the case though?

Just to wallow in sin while the wife is out I stopped at the video store looking for dirty movies. There weren't any. What's this world coming too? They had a buy-two-get-one-free deal on used video tapes, so I grabbed Gods and Generals for $9.99, Blood Work for $7.99 and the freebie, worth every penny, was Buying the Cow. It promised an R rating for nudity, language and sexual situations. Man, what they can get away with claiming. This guy's supposed to be living it up for two months while his girlfriend, who has given him The Ultimatum, takes a job assignment to New York City so he can think about whether he wants to live without her. They go to a so-called strip club... I've seen more nudity at Lake Calhoun. The only one who gets naked is this knucklehead who gets tricked into thinking he spent the night with a gay guy.
Basically, the movie is a masculinized chick flick. But it is funny. It's kind of understated. Like a long, but pretty good sit-com. I didn't think there was anything wrong with the acting or anything.

But I still wanted to practice vice. So I went to the tobacco store and bought a can o' snoose. I had a pretty good idea how that would work out for me. I've actually bought four cans now since I quit 6 years ago. I nearly threw up twice and actually threw up the other two times. How the hell did I ever get that monkey on my back in the first place? Let me release a secret to the world: tobacco--chewed anyway--is a strong laxative. Not to mention an emetic. Shit cleans you out!

Oh, I didn't throw up this time. I took a pretty small dip. Got the buzz I wanted though, and cleaned out the desire for anything more serious. Except bloggers' high.

Don't tell my wife

I skipped the meeting last night and ran around taking fall color pictures. Not that I don't think the meeting is important, but the window for good leaf pictures is extremely narrow.
I suppose it's supremely arrogant of me to think I can afford to skip meetings, but I've been sober for more than a month, since August 22, and it seems that the same methods that served me so well in quitting chewing tobacco work here too. One new method is thinking about all those nice people at the meeting and how I don't want to disappoint them.
Another thing I do is, when I started thinking I might have a problem, I started coming up with reasons to quit. Whenever I have a craving I bring one of them to mind. The biggest one is remembering how I pissed away $400 that last night.

It's Jon Johnson from Wisconsin's birthday!

Happy Birthday Jon, Heather and, if I remember right, my cousin Denise.

While I was goofing off

Actually, I was cleaning the garage, helping my pregnant wife with the house work, busier'n hell at work, buying a new truck, changing my sexual preference... Just kidding on that last one.

Anyway ARI sent me this: Baby Kim's Secret Weapon, by John Dawson. An Exerpt:

But despite their explicit premise that there is no universal standard of morality, the
moral relativists implicitly take one moral precept for granted, as if it were
unquestionable: altruism. According to altruism, the ethics of self-sacrifice, the rich
and powerful are guilty by the mere fact of their success and are duty-bound to
sacrifice their wealth to those who have less. Thus, rich and powerful America must
assume moral responsibility for the impoverished North Koreans.

I just added a link to Capitalism Magazine.

They don't tell you how to get rich, they tell you why to get rich.
They don't hold much truck with the belief that poverty is a virtue.
Frankly, if you think you have too much wealth, just lie down for a while and it'll go away. You have to take positive action to acquire and keep wealth. You either have to work hard or arrange a system or invent a machine that will work hard for you.

You may be interested in taking the Capitalism Tour.

Blogger showed me this guy

who promises to be a good introduction into the study of legal matters.

He's talking about what a weany George Will is today.
Here's a taste:

"Speaking of bad smells, Will's screed just reeks with contempt for voters, for democracy and for everybody who isn't the kind of conservative who carried a briefcase in junior high. Well, he's full of it. I have never been as proud to live in a democracy as when I was waiting in the orderly line to cast my vote last Tuesday. No anger, not even any talking. It was quiet, like people were in church. These were ordinary people, and a lot of them, who took their duties seriously, who were taking time off from working for a living (and not by telling other people how to govern themselves) to be citizens. Will needs a little more Ron and a lot less Nancy Reagan in his conservatism. Maybe somebody should buy him a horse (but, please, with a Western saddle!)."

American common sense, what Ayn Rand called our Sense of Life, is reasserting itself upon discovering from experience what a failure Socialism is.

Well! That should be an improvement.

I finally went wandering around the controls for this blog and did a bunch of things that needed doing. My reader will notice the changes no doubt.

What happens to posts when I decide to do something else before I publish them?

Blogger knocked me off my train of thought with a survey.

Aw, they wouldn't let me link you to it. They know their bloggers. We're all a bunch of anarchistic smart-asses.

Here's a riddle in Fannee Doollee format:

Al likes anarchy, but he doesn't like chaos! What's up with that?

I occasionally donate to The Advocates for Self-Government (let's see, where's that link.... Aw, crap! I gotta open another window.... Do any of you guys know what this file named with a tilde symbol is, that I keep having appear in various places in my computer? A virus, I'd guess, but it doesn't seem to harm anything. Yet.)
Ah, here it is.
Anyway, here's the secret. I run my own life. Well or shittily it's up to me. I get help when I need it, but it is I who goes and gets the help. I learned a long time ago, that whenever I depend on anyone else for my satisfaction, I end up waiting a hell of a long time.
Ludwig von Mises says that nobody does anything except to relieve a felt discomfort.
Whoops! Lileks got me to searching for Jessica Hahn.
Aah! A little girl wants me to read her a bedtime story. Ahem.
Good thing I had the blog over the other window.
Enough of this foolishness! You've Dad business to attend to.

Have trouble understanding economics?

Here it is in a nutshell:

"Since the term "marginal utility" expresses "by a single phrase the idea both of demand and supply," prices "are built up on subjective valuations" alone and "correspond closely with the subjective estimates" of the marginal buyer and seller, i.e., "the least eager buyer and the least eager seller.""

Jeffrey Herbener and Frank Fetter.

Mises.org has now put Frank Fetter on the web.

An important point from his bio, A Forgotten Giant
by Jeffrey Herbener:

"Fetter began with the "simple" and "almost self-evident" proposition that "the motive force in economics is found in the feelings of men." It is man's wants that urge him to action, first in primitive pursuits, but eventually "wants develop and transform the world" by propelling man to accumulate wealth, and upon wealth, to build civilization. Moreover, wants are not limited to the narrow "self-interest" of man or of merely "material" attainments, but span the full range of man's "social and spiritual" desires."

Here's Wayne Dunn's website.

It's called the Rational View.

For those of you

who have been remiss in your duty to yourself to examine the truth, Capitalism Magazine has this definition:

Socialism is state ownership of the means of production. Capitalism is private ownership of the means of production.

The author, Wayne Dunn, says further:

To be civilized is to deal with others only through their consent, through persuasion rather than brute force. Civilized men understand that physical coercion is out of the question, that any relationship between individuals must be voluntary. An uncivilized man, by contrast, has no reservations whatsoever about applying a club to any perceived adversary's noggin. Force and intimidation characterize his actions....

This is the set up to answer the question "Do you think socialism was able to 'civilize' or 'tame' capitalism by 1914? Or do you think that capitalism did not need to be 'civilized' or 'tamed'."

Read The Whole Thing.

The Economist has a lovely example

of the Monetarist solution to economic woes.
What Japan needs is the separation of Commerce and State.
I am head of the Brooklyn Center Chapter of Bourgeois Shopkeepers Against Corporate Welfare (I wanted to add "Philistine" but it's not about art), and I say The People would be much better off if the Government (the guys with guns who can legally wave them around) would leave nonviolent, nonfraudulent businessmen alone. And ignore the pleas and bribes of the skanks who beg for intervention against more successful business foes.

This one ties in my threads.

Link thanks to Steven Kinsella.

I think Rand wanted him to show up on her doorstep with a bottle of wine and flowers.
I know that's sacrilege, so to speak, but I couldn't shake that feeling while reading Human Action.

If you know Rand's philosophy of Romantic Love, Mises was her guy.

More from Lew Rockwell at www.mises.org:

The irony is that the WTO bears much of the blame, though there is plenty to go around. Somehow world trade proceeded apace for the entire history of civilization without this outfit serving as a sounding board for fanatics, protectionists, and would-be global regulators. When so many free traders supported the WTO's creation, were they being naïve or were they being paid off? Regardless, the WTO is no friend of free trade.

Don't Politicize! Privatize!

Lew's right:

Many believe that world trade, because it is a good thing, ought to be sanctioned, managed, and otherwise regulated by the government or a coalition of governments. Thus was the intellectual error behind the creation of the World Trade Organization, an international bureaucracy that was supposed to open up trade but has ended up politicizing it and creating international conflict where none need exist.

A little John Galt for ya

"We, who live by values, not by loot, are traders, both in matter and in spirit. A trader is a man who earns what he gets and does not give or take the unearned."
--From Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged.

Comment of Tibor Machan from his book Ayn Rand:

"A close look should make clear that this conception of trade has nothing to do with the homo economicus conceptions of human relationships. There is nothing purely materialistic in the trader image of man in Rand's viewpoint. For Rand, emphasis is on the terms of human relationships, not on their motivation or the alleged economic impetus for all human conduct. A Rational egoist is not a utility maximizer, a calculating hedonist, but an individual who acts on principle, by reference to a code of values that is not reducible to, but merely subsumes (within a certain social domain), market values."

Let's sing a song!

Oh, if you try a little foolishness
You can overlook the toolishness
Of those rotten, bastard scumbags
and their sleazy, greasy ways.

It's your fault, Farmer.

Hey, Joe! Are you related to the french singer Mylene [same last name as yours].

Erkkila's Koan: The purpose of drunkenness is to justify public nudity.

Dude! Did you have a satori experience there?

Of course, that brings up the distinctions between legality and justice.

Think about it.

What are you doing with that breathalyzer?

Thich Nhat Hanh - Buddhists take over Wisconsin.

I'm exaggerating. I'm with this guy

"This is not meant to be a religious event," says Maples. "You don't see any statues of the Buddha. You don't see any chanting or incense. [But] whatever helps people be ethical and moral and do the next right thing in front of them, I'm all for it, as long as it's inclusive and not exclusive."

And, as Hanh says

"It is not necessary to become a Buddhist to profit from the teachings of the Buddha. You don't have to be Chinese to enjoy Chinese food."

I take wisdom where it can be found. Do I think Buddhism might take people the wrong way on some matters? Absolutely, but this is no crisis.

Jim Powell rules

Here's an annoying twerp. Check out the guy who gets the last word.

I am a Libertarian after the mold of Jim Powell, who wrote The Triumph of Liberty.

I am also a great fan of the book Liberty and the Great Libertarians, by Charles Sprading, which shows, along with Triumph, just what a diverse bunch libertarians are and how complicated the issue is.

The New Colossus, by Emma Lazarus

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"