Nicely put.

Sanford Ikeda explains the proper uses of micro- and macroeconomics. The first commenters said something that roused a thought:

But in the overall “Macro” economic world, the drag of the Welfare State and the Warfare State has led to the economic problems we have today. There are just too many non-producers. Too many wars,too many Welfare Recipients,too many Social Security recipients,too many people on Food Stamps,Unemployment Compensation etc.,etc. plus much,much too many government employees and retired government employees,who may be deemed necessary for a “civilized society,” but in the end produce no real wealth.

My thought is that somebody ought to mention that a huge part of the American economy pays for government employees whose job it is to actively destroy wealth. The only way that could work for us is if we followed the WWII model and destroyed all other industrialized nations. I think that's what our Keynesians and Neocons actually have in mind (though, perhaps, hiding in the back). Our commenter, Libertarian Jerry, goes on to say:

Its a classic example of the imbalance between the Economic Class that creates the wealth and the Political Class that lives off of that created wealth. Add to this “Macro” economic problem the “Too big to fail” mentality of the plutocracy that use government connections to try and thwart the rules of economics,then you have the sorry mess of the American Economy.

I'm going to have to buy a WSJ today. I see the Swiss are buying Euros to keep their Francs cheap. Hey! Speaking of 'nicely put', here's Larkin Rose doing what he does best:

On an individual basis, most people understand and accept that threatening people and using violence is justified only when used defensively. It's not okay to use force to steal someone's stuff. It is okay to use force to stop someone from stealing your stuff. It's not okay to violently assault someone. It is okay to use violence to stop someone from assaulting you. Yes, there can be occasional gray areas, but the general idea of the non-aggression principle is pretty simple. So no, killing innocent people, because the regime they live under does bad things, is not okay. It's not okay if you're a middle eastern terrorist, or if you're a U.S. soldier. On the other hand, using violence to try to stop aggressors is justified, whether the aggressors are private or "government." (In most cases, trying to forcibly resist thugs who imagine themselves to be representing "authority" tends to be very hazardous and counter-productive, but that doesn't mean it isn't morally justified.)

The parenthetical point is important to mention. I don't know any anarcho-capitalists who advise starting a war with the police, nor looting any non-violent business. We preach education and negotiation, not aggression. The problem of violence will never be solved by warmongering. I'm sorry if I haven't made it clear that I've made about a 170° turnaround since I started spewing my guts all over this page back in '03. I sincerely doubted then that the government would go about seeking justice for 9-11 efficaciously, but I agreed that they should try. Now I think that Clarence Darrow (of Scopes Trial fame) had the right of it, when he published his book Resist Not Evil a hundred years before.

Here's something to think about

If you like that song, the guy wants you to do something.

Now this is naiveté

"The aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust." --James Madison, Federalist No. 57

I got it from these guys; the Founders Quote daily email.

Here is a very clear statement of the Objectivist Credo

The context is a debate between two Objectivists and two Canadian Socialists. (The Objectivists are Canadian as well, but Peikoff was living in NYC at the time and I think he lives in California now. I think he must have American citizenship, but I haven't heard about that.)

Interesting Juxtaposition on Freedom News Daily today

3) Israel: Rocket fired from Gaza kills Thai worker

Los Angeles Times

"A rocket launched from the Gaza Strip killed a Thai farmworker in southern Israel on Thursday, the first such fatality in the area in more than a year. The blast occurred in a clump of greenhouses in the farming community of Netiv Haasara, just north of Gaza. The 30-year-old victim was not immediately identified. Rocket and mortar fire into southern Israel from Gaza, which once occurred daily, has been dramatically reduced since the Israelis' 22-day assault on the coastal strip at the end of 2008 and early last year. But in recent days, the number of attacks has increased, including five in a 48-hour period, military officials said." (03/18/10)

http://tinyurl.com/ykgtgm3 -----

4) Federal drug thugs launch new anti-tobacco offensive "for the children"

Los Angeles Times

"Taking aim at the tobacco industry's youth marketing machinery, the Food and Drug Administration Thursday outlawed free samples of cigarettes and banned the use of tobacco brand names on promotional gear and in the sponsorship of concerts and sporting events. Theagency also added a federal ban on the sale of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products to people under 18, imposing a uniform standard on varying state restrictions already in place. ... The new rules 'will help our kids stay healthier by making it harder for tobacco companies to target them,' said Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said at a press conference announcing the new marketing rules." (03/18/10)

http://tinyurl.com/yb2ojwz

The government really has only one tool: search and destroy.

Rerun time: December 15th, 2004

BILL OF RIGHTS DAY!

So, I don't know... Read the Bill of Rights aloud to someone you love.

Addendum: Things To Do Today

1. Worship, speak, publish, assemble as you wish. Petition the government.

2. Bear arms. (A sword or knife would be fine, if you hate guns. Or bare arms.)

3. Refuse to quarter a soldier in your home.

4. Rebuff an unwaranted search.

5. Don't let anyone execute you, especially not twice, and for God's sake, don't help them do it by testifying against yourself! Insist on a trial. Get payment for that car they seized.

6. Make sure your arrest and trial follows all the prescriptions of the 6th Amendment.

7. Insist on a jury trial of your civil case.

8. Watch out for that excessive bail and fine, and make sure you're not cruelly nor unusually punished.

9. Assert other rights you retain.

10. Take back your power from the government.

Probably my best original work.

I get sick and tired of the way

Robert Ringer beats around the bush:

...[U]ndoing the damage that’s been done would entail repealing each and every unconstitutional law that has been passed — not just during the reign of the Duplicitous Despot, but since at least the early part of the 20th century. Just because an immoral law has been on the books for a long time doesn’t make it any less immoral. How long was slavery legal in the U.S.? How long was communism accepted as the norm in the Soviet Union?

Liberty is man’s natural state, tyranny his natural enemy. Natural Law is superior to manmade laws, and the essence of Natural Law is self-evident: Individuals have a right to sovereignty over their own lives. Period.

McCainizing about “cutting waste” and “slowing the growth of benefits” is nothing more than a cowardly surrender. Cutting and slowing only succeed in holding things in place until the progressives regain power and move their agenda still further to the left.

The problem with all forms of welfare is that once a program is on the books, no one has the guts to suggest completely removing it. When progressives manage to push something through, they know very well that the pampered populace will see it as a “right.” They are counting on this free-loader mentality for long-term victory.

If the government behaved like it ought to, nobody'd notice the poor little thing.

Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty

has sent out an alert, Peaceful Dissent and Government Witch Hunts:

As most readers of this are probably aware, the Campaign for Liberty has been singled out, along with a few other political groups, in a leaked Missouri state government report, "The Modern Militia Movement." The document tells state officials to be on the lookout for violent extremists while conflating them with pretty much anyone who criticizes the government. Perhaps most troubling, the information apparently comes from the Department of Homeland Security, meaning that similar documents could be circulating in states other than Missouri.

I made sure to include that link. It's interesting reading.

Here is a summation of where we are now:

In the summer of 2005, the FBI admitted to collecting thousands of documents on non-violent activists, the ACLU, Greenpeace, and antiwar organizations. By using "National Security Letters," the government could force citizens to relinquish personal and financial information while forbidding them from informing anyone, including their lawyer. By 2005, about 30,000 such letters were issued annually. The FBI spied on the Catholic Worker Movement, noting its "semi-communistic ideology."

The same year, NBC News obtained a secret 400-page Pentagon document that tracked such "extremists" as anti-war Quakers in Florida, whose meeting was officially described as a "suspicious incident" and a "threat." All the while, peaceful activists were denied their right to travel by being inexplicably put on federal No-Fly lists.

Now the flavor of government has changed from the Republican leviathan of George W. Bush to the Democratic leviathan of Barack Hussein Obama. A different group is vulnerable to being marginalized -- in many ways a revitalization of the Clinton era atmosphere, although now with the post-9/11 concern about peace activists and all the surveillance powers inaugurated by Bush still in place.

Interestingly, he, Anthony Gregory, doesn't end the article with any call to action, except to "speak up; to tell the truth; to defend the freedoms of all people to speak, live in peace, pursue happiness in a world of liberty, so long as they do not commit aggression against their fellow man." No call for funding - though he does brag up the C4L, as they like to abbreviate it, talking about how they're doing just that.

Nullification Lives!

The Principles of '98* are experiencing a revival:

Last week, HUMAN EVENTS reported that eleven states, Washington, New Hampshire, Arizona, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, Minnesota, Georgia, South Carolina, and Texas, had all “all introduced bills and resolutions” declaring their sovereignty over Obama’s actions in light of the 10th Amendment.

These actions are in response to the Obama administration’s faux-“stimulus” legislation which directly assaults the rights of states to reject the money coming from the federal government. So far, several Republican governors -- among them South Carolina’s Mark Sanford and Louisiana’s Bobby Jindal -- have said they would refuse all or part of the stimulus money because of the constitutional infringements and because of the additional unfunded liabilities they impose on the states.

This week, HUMAN EVENTS is happy to report that five more states have decided to invoke the 10th as well.

These five -- Tennessee, Kentucky, Kansas, Indiana, and West Virginia -- have all begun their action under the 10th Amendment in a bid to protect themselves from what they view as nothing less than an unconstitutional usurpation of power on the part of the Obama administration.

And a commenter adds:

I find it interesting that this column mentions only Jindal and Sanford as rejecting some of the stimulus money. In fact, it was Gov. Sarah Palin who was the first governor to go on record as rejecting the stimulus, and has in fact rejected more than 50 percent of the money Alaska is expected to be in line for. Jindal on the other hand, has only rejected $98 million out of a total of $9 billion his state is expected to receive.

Besides that, it is important to note that more people are starting to realize that the 10th Amendment still exists, and has been ignored far too long.

*Note that a commenter, Michael Boldin, gives links to The Kentucky (author, Vice President Thomas Jefferson) and Virginia (Madison) Resolutions of 1798, against the Alien and Sedition Acts - but they have far broader reach than that.

Sheldon Richman's talking about Greed today:

LINK

Greedy people by definition want more not less. So they will be as concerned to hold on to what they have as they will be to increase their wealth. Risky investment is a way to get more but also a way to end up with less. Greed, therefore, will tend to restrain recklessness if people know their profits and losses belong to them. The corollary is that the restraints on recklessness will be weakened to the extent that people expect the losses to be absorbed by others. Market discipline is the key.

For large financial institutions in the United States, Scenario B is far closer to reality than Scenario A. As Gerald P. O’Driscoll Jr.writes, “Deposit insurance, access to the Fed’s lending, and the implicit (now explicit) government guarantee for banks ‘too big to fail’ all constituted a system of financial corporatism.” What these interventions have in common is the potential to shift losses forcibly from those who should be responsible for them to someone else—making reckless behavior and losses more likely than they would be. That’s the definition of moral hazard.

Greed is an easy target. But blaming greed gets us nowhere. As Lawrence White says, it’s like blaming gravity for a plane crash. It certainly doesn’t suggest any sensible policy response. The religion professor said we need more regulation. But if people are greedy, how do more regulators promise to improve matters? They are people too.

If we can’t trust people with freedom, how can we trust them with power?

People can't be trusted with anything. We should just drug 'em all up and keep them in tanks of saline solution like the whatchamajiggums on "Minority Report."

BTW, make sure you read the comments after the article as well.

Here's a message from The Rammer,

As Jesse Ventura used to call him (I miss Jesse on talk radio--the dude flat-out has a lot of great stories to tell):

December 16, 2005


Alan Erkkila
[Now, I wouldn't mind if my regulars sent me stuff, or stopped by the house, but the whole world doesn't need to know my street address.]

Dear Alan:

Thank you for contacting me with your concerns about the federal
budget deficit.

Over the past decade, federal spending has far outpaced the rate of
inflation, and it's past time for this disturbing trend to stop!

I am pleased that recent estimates by the Congressional Budget
Office show a decrease in this year's budget deficit of over $100
billion from previous estimates. And Congress must continue to
work to cut the pork from its annual spending bills.

Rest assured of my continued strong commitment to reining in
federal spending and curbing the growth of the federal
government.

Thanks again for contacting me, as I appreciate hearing from you.
Please let me know whenever I can be helpful to you or your
family.

Sincerely,



JIM RAMSTAD
Member of Congress

You stick to that philosophy like glue, dude and you've got my vote.

A brilliant summation, from the Mises Institute:

Mises taught that all societies in all times, and their governing structures, are the result of the ideas prevalent in the culture. He took it for granted that no government is classically liberal by nature. They all want maximum power and wealth, which they can only obtain at the direct expense of the people. How much will they agree to give? It is the public belief in liberty — originating with the intellectual class — that ultimately restrains the state's ambitions.

Totalitarianism is not an aberration, in this view, but the expected result of any state that is not so restrained. After all, the state can use any ideological excuse. In ancient times, it claimed to be a god, as with Pharoah. In more recent years, the excuses have included the need for community (communism), national greatness (fascism), central economic planning (the New Deal), or homeland security.

If the population is passive and uninformed by contrary voices, the state can succeed in its aims. Yet if cultural convictions are intolerant of power, and embrace the inviolable right to person and property, liberty prevails.