>1. because the power to consume is more important than the actual savings in a consumer market,from each citizens perspective.
---false. savings drives investment in future consumpton. savings is just delayed consumption, it isn't "hoarding".
>when you measure what you can buy at a supermarket, it's based on your purchasing power, which remains unchanged at the lower levels.
---true, but purchasing power is irrelevant to property rights.
> It's just sympathetic to the way capitalism works.
---false. capitalism works by trading value for value.
>2. A flat tax of anything on lower classes does not take the rationale of ppp.
---because that rationale is based (apparently) on keynesianism, which does not take into account the higher order production, or labor in those markets.
>3. Because each individual is being taxed equally, just not on a value that is immediately apparent when you consider complex economies to just be barter systems alleviated by currency.
---no, they are being taxed according to a central authority's idea of "fairness" not justice. The Government is supposed to do its best to see individual (not social) justice done, not to make everything "fair" treating individuals differently according to arbitrary rules.
>4. Don't see what youre getting at
---already posted an explanation of says law.
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Failure as a Motivating Factor in Improving Educational Performance or... In Praise of the “C” Word
In 1991, Mary Sherry wrote an article for Newsweek magazine citing the poor results of our educational system. She blamed this poor outcome on the lack of motivation on the students' part to attempt to succeed, if failure is only a remote possibility. She cited policies which promote and even graduate students regardless of their performance or mastery of the subject material. In all these things, she is absolutely correct. There are, however, three groups of actors in this drama, not two. There are the parents, the educational system, and the students. Ms. Sherry, correctly , identified the ability of the teacher (as a representative of the educational system) to fail the student as a motivating factor to increase the student's level of performance. The meaningful ability of the parent to fail the educational system, in the form of a wider range of educational choices for their children, would motivate the educational system to improve its level of performance.
A parent's role in the educational system is analogous to that of the consumer in a marketplace. When the supplier provides a good or service which do not meet the demands of the consumer, that consumer is generally free to seek that good or service elsewhere, and therefore not benefit that supplier through trade. With the current American educational system, this is not the case. Not only is the consumption of the service (primary education) mandatory, the consumer has no meaningful way not to support those schools which do not satisfy their demands. Public schools are generally assigned by district and any tax breaks available to parents who choose private schools are much less valuable than the amount spent on students remaining within the unsatisfactory school. If the parents had the direct choice to take the funding which went to their child's education, from school A to school B, then school A would have an increased incentive to satisfy the demands of the parents, and improve the quality of the education.
The increased ability of the parent to choose which schools get funding automatically, and more efficiently, allocates the resources spent on the student's education. This is accomplished in three ways. The parents, not politicians, will be the judge of the quality of their child's education. Those schools with successful strategies will automatically get funding and those schools with failing strategies will automatically have their funding cut. This competition for the resources controlled by the consumer will improve the overall quality of education, as the bad schools are closed.
In 2004, congress enacted legislation, establishing the “DC Opportunity Scholarship Program”. This is a voucher program, designed to allow parents more choice in which schools their children attend, by putting some of the choices about funds which normally go to public schools, into those parents' hands. By all accounts, this program was a success. The number of vouchers was limited by random draw of applicants, which is unfortunate, but this produced three classes of students for data analysis. There were students who got vouchers, those who applied, but did not get vouchers, and those who did not apply. In 2010, Business Wire magazine published the results of a DOE study of this program, and its peripheral effects. The article quoted the study, saying, “Using a scholarship [voucher] increased the graduation rate by 21 percentage points.” This is not the difference between the students who got the vouchers and those who did not apply. This is the difference between those who applied and won, and those who applied and did not win vouchers. Not only did the students do better, The amount of the voucher was less than half the amount of funds spent on the average DCPS student. The article goes on, stating, ”A stunning 28 percent of D.C. public schools made definitive efforts to improve as a direct result of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, the report revealed.” The introduction of choice, and therefore meaningful competition, increased the efficiency of providing an education and improved the average quality of the available educational choices.
Ms. Sherry's article was correct, as far as it went, but it did not go far enough in assigning culpability, and identifying all the incentives present in a primary student's education. The parent should be the primary decision maker, not the school, or a politician, when it comes to their child's education. Such models have been tried, and have yielded better results than the current system. Finally, the possibility of failure is only meaningful if you have the choice of methods by which to succeed.
Connelly, Mark. The Sundance Writer: A Rhetoric, Reader, Handbook. Boston, MA: Wadsworth, 2009. Print.
“D.C. School Voucher Program Boosts Graduation Rates, Students from Failing Schools Benefit.” Business Wire 22 June 2010. General OneFile. Web. 15 Nov. 2011.
Friday, August 24, 2012
I am a Liberal Because:
- I believe that if people don't succeed it's always someone else's fault.
- we must always accept other cultures and always hate our own.
- I believe I am entitled to success even if I do nothing to achieve it.
- I know nothing of history and I refuse to learn from the mistakes of the present.
- when something SOUNDS good it must BE good.
- I'm entitled to the money you earned but you're not.
- I believe class warfare will lead to a better society.
- I want what you have but I don't want to do what you had to do to get it.
- anyone who is suffering is automatically a saint.
- anyone who is poor is automatically a victim.
- if it hurts my feelings it should be illegal.
- I hate myself and my country for reasons I don't understand and can't explain.
- "tolerance" means you must tolerate me but I will never tolerate you.
- I believe in freedom of speech... except for if you disagree with me.
- I have never had to fend for myself or earn what I have.
- it feels cool to yell slogans and pretend I know what's going on.
- I believe more rules and more government will always solve our problems.
- other people should be forced to live the way I tell them to live and think the things I want them to think.
- I know what's best for you and you don't.
- I believe people should be required to make the right decision under threat of prosecution.
- if conservatives do it it's oppressive fascism, if liberals do it it's enlightened progressivism.
- I'm afraid of responsibility.
- If you're successful and I'm not it's because of how evil you are, never because of how lazy or incompetent I am.
- we must always accept other cultures and always hate our own.
- I believe I am entitled to success even if I do nothing to achieve it.
- I know nothing of history and I refuse to learn from the mistakes of the present.
- when something SOUNDS good it must BE good.
- I'm entitled to the money you earned but you're not.
- I believe class warfare will lead to a better society.
- I want what you have but I don't want to do what you had to do to get it.
- anyone who is suffering is automatically a saint.
- anyone who is poor is automatically a victim.
- if it hurts my feelings it should be illegal.
- I hate myself and my country for reasons I don't understand and can't explain.
- "tolerance" means you must tolerate me but I will never tolerate you.
- I believe in freedom of speech... except for if you disagree with me.
- I have never had to fend for myself or earn what I have.
- it feels cool to yell slogans and pretend I know what's going on.
- I believe more rules and more government will always solve our problems.
- other people should be forced to live the way I tell them to live and think the things I want them to think.
- I know what's best for you and you don't.
- I believe people should be required to make the right decision under threat of prosecution.
- if conservatives do it it's oppressive fascism, if liberals do it it's enlightened progressivism.
- I'm afraid of responsibility.
- If you're successful and I'm not it's because of how evil you are, never because of how lazy or incompetent I am.
Monday, July 16, 2012
Libertarianism for Dummies by: Max Borders
Max Borders is a 2011-12 Robert Novak Fellow
His original article can be found at:
http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/13/libertarianism-for-dummies/
I have reproduced it here to put it all on one page.
There is no denying it. Libertarianism is hot. This has a lot of people on both the left and right nervous. Some of the territory liberals and conservatives believed they had staked out long ago is being taken over by a new center — one that seems to borrow from aspects of each of the dominant partisan tribes. But libertarianism has its own elegant symmetry, as we’ll see.
The two tribes’ anxiety toward libertarianism rears its head in a number of ways. Most critics stitch together libertarian voodoo dolls from scraps of hearsay and Newsweek articles, then needle the dolls to get a reaction. Others say libertarianism is passé — a mere echo of discredited Enlightenment thinking. Still others claim libertarianism is a dogma that could never exist in the “real world.”
This article is intended as a general antidote to these criticisms. But more than that, it’s an invitation. So feel free to bookmark it. Whenever one of your social network “friends” starts in on some rant, you can save time and simply link to this piece.
1. Myth: Libertarianism is about blind faith in market processes.
Libertarianism starts with skepticism about government power, not faith in markets. Because markets are just an abstraction, what we’re really talking about is decentralized people power. We do have faith in people because people can and do solve problems. Governments are people, too, of course. So the most basic question is: which form of organization does a better job of solving problems and making the world a better place — centralized organization or decentralized? In other words, why do libertarians prefer market processes to government power in most areas? Libertarians are skeptical of government power not merely because of Lord Acton’s admonition about “absolute power.” We also think voluntary association is pro-social.
When people work together voluntarily, they:
1) Have better incentives to achieve their goals — both private and common;
2) Don’t coerce each other, they convince each other (and persuasion is better than power);
3) Are the stuff of real economies and real communities, not some political contrivance;
4) Can more easily exit a group or a set of rules in order to try something new;
5) Tend to pay closer attention to those around them — like their family, neighbors and community.
2. Myth: Libertarians think there should be no government.
Some libertarians engage in philosophical debates about the possibility of no government. But most libertarians believe government should be restricted to certain basic things — namely those things that protect you and your neighbor’s life, liberty and property. So what are those things? Courts to settle disputes, enforce contracts and administer justice. A solid national defense should resist adventurism. A police force should protect us, but with limited powers and responsibilities. Any other purported responsibilities of government — like building roads and bridges — should at least be pushed down to the most local level possible. Big plans fail big. Small experiments fail small. Successful small experiments can be replicated after a process of trial and error.
3. Myth: Libertarians are selfish.
Some libertarians are selfish, but libertarians are no more likely to be selfish than non-libertarians. You see, libertarians don’t think compassion is something you leave at the voting booth. And if it’s compulsory, it’s not really compassion at all, is it? Self-interest is certainly a part of our worldview. To deny one’s natural inclinations toward pursuing happiness is just kooky asceticism (unless, of course, asceticism somehow makes you happy.) We also know prosperity is the result of “selfish” people going about their business — trucking, bartering and trading.
But people have selfless instincts, too. So how should people manifest those instincts, by actively looking after our neighbors or by watching MSNBC and bitching about the rich? Libertarians are charitable to the extent that human beings are charitable. We happen to think individuals are better at making decisions about charity than central authorities. In fact, we consider it morally lazy to conflate higher taxes and forced redistribution with compassion. And we consider it strange to justify coercion by appeal to compassion. Think about it: Would it be morally justified for me to walk up to a man on the street and hold him up at gunpoint if I planned to give his money to charity? If not, what does a mob of voters and a corruptible legislature add to this story?
4. Myth: Libertarians don’t care if poor people (especially children) starve and sick people die.
In the interests of some grand compromise, most libertarians would tolerate some sort of minimum income or safety net — but it would look nothing like the monstrous entitlement system we have today. I don’t want to be flippant. I’m using strong language because today’s entitlement state is truly monstrous. It creates a dependent underclass — i.e., folks essentially paid to be poor. Bizarrely, it forces younger, poorer people to pay for the pensions (Social Security) and healthcare of rich people in Boca Raton. And it corrupts/crowds out the philanthropic sector. Helping the poor with welfare is like putting out a fire with sweet crude.
5. Myth: Libertarians think people should be able to do whatever they want.
No. Libertarians think people should be able to do whatever they want as long as: they don’t harm others or others’ property; they are not contractually bound to forego certain activities; and their own freely chosen moral systems don’t proscribe it. On the latter: I know quite a few Mormon libertarians. They swear off caffeine, tobacco and alcohol. (These are some of my favorite vices!) But most Mormons don’t see it as the state’s responsibility to take care of my body or my spirit. It’s mine. By Mormon lights, I have to choose the straight and narrow for it to matter. Moral practice is both a private and social affair, to be sure. But “social” doesn’t extend to state power. It’s about the free formation of moral communities. What other kind of morality is there but the kind one chooses? State-enforced “good” has always ended up in varying degrees being on the wrong side of history — from the Inquisition to the Great Leap Forward. That is why, for libertarians, tolerance is a prime virtue.
6. Myth: Libertarians have a narrow “don’t tread on me” ethos.
Well, this isn’t a complete myth. Let’s just say it’s a myth of omission — that is, only part of the story. It’s true that in our guts we don’t want anyone to tell us what to do. We don’t think anyone should decide what we may put into our bodies, how to spend our money, or how to live our lives. We don’t want to be used as slave labor for all or part of the year. I guess we could be accused of sounding like most teenagers — only with a big caveat about personal responsibility.
But if we look at the whole libertarian ethos, we can see a corollary to the Gadsden flag motto: “Don’t tread on others.” In other words, Rabbi Hillel the Elder had it right more than 2,000 years ago when he said, “What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn.” On the other side of the world (at probably the exact same time) Lao-Tzu warned: “The more artificial taboos and restrictions there are in the world, the more the people are impoverished. … The more that laws and regulations are given prominence, the more thieves and robbers there will be.” It’s not that hard to understand why. If more people adhered to the “don’t tread” principle as a matter of ethics and of policy, there would be less treading-upon in the world. Far from being based in some Enlightenment fancy or tea party slogan, libertarianism is rooted in ancient truths about how people can achieve social harmony and prosperity.
7. Myth: Libertarians are corporate apologists.
To quote Bugs Bunny: “Eh, he don’t know me very well, do he?”
Libertarians and classical liberals from Adam Smith to Milton Friedman, James Madison to James Buchanan, and Frederic Bastiat to Friedrich Hayek have been warning us about corporations since there were corporations. It’s not that corporations are evil per se, however. Companies are just people cooperating for common goals. Bad things happen when corporations collude with the state against the people. When you hear the words “crony capitalism,” there is a 95 percent chance that’s coming from the mouth of a libertarian. That’s because liberals, conservatives and populists cannot so easily distance themselves from it. The left has had its Solyndras. The right has had its Halliburtons. Both tribes have had their banksters. And libertarians have had enough. We believe cronyism will destroy this Republic as surely as it destroyed Rome.
8. Myth: Libertarians agree on everything.
Here’s a mini top ten list of things about which libertarians are fairly divided:
1.) Immigration
2.) Austrian or Chicago economics
3.) Abortion
4.) Origin of rights
5.) The status of children and teenagers
6.) War and pacifism
7.) Strategy of reform
8.) Tactics of reform
9.) Whether to compromise
10.) Intellectual property rights
9. Myth: Libertarianism is untried and would never work.
I have two responses to this myth: The first is: “So you think this is working?” The second is: History has shown that, by degrees, the freer the people, the happier and more prosperous they are. I can say all of this with confidence because there is a strong correlation between freedom and prosperity. Just look at examples in the Fraser and Heritage economic freedom indices.
Now, if we thought something wouldn’t work because it was untried, we would not have most of the good things we enjoy today. Try telling Tim Berners-Lee circa 1988 that the Internet would never work: A fully decentralized information network used by billions of free people around the world without central control? My God, it’s untried!
10. Myth: Libertarianism is a “materialistic” worldview.
Saved this one for last. In fact, one of my friends skewered this turkey in his new book with great finesse: “‘Materialist values’ is a vague term, but if — as seems to be the case — [E.J.] Dionne thinks the chief justification for capitalism is that it generates lots of stuff for consumers, he’s mistaken,” writes Donald Boudreaux.
But, but …
I can hear all the “buts” now. People should ask themselves three fundamental questions before launching into any critique of libertarianism:
1.) In your heart, do you prefer persuasion and cooperation over power and coercion? If no, then read no further. If yes …
2.) In forming your opinions about the role of government — whatever they are — have you exhausted every other means of achieving some good end before turning to state coercion? If no, then try being more creative and entrepreneurial before rashly turning to power. If yes …
3.) Are you even a little closer to understanding the libertarian worldview than you were before?
Max Borders is author of the forthcoming “Superwealth: Why we should stop worrying about the gap between rich and poor.” Contact him if you want a reminder when the book is out.
His original article can be found at:
http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/13/libertarianism-for-dummies/
I have reproduced it here to put it all on one page.
There is no denying it. Libertarianism is hot. This has a lot of people on both the left and right nervous. Some of the territory liberals and conservatives believed they had staked out long ago is being taken over by a new center — one that seems to borrow from aspects of each of the dominant partisan tribes. But libertarianism has its own elegant symmetry, as we’ll see.
The two tribes’ anxiety toward libertarianism rears its head in a number of ways. Most critics stitch together libertarian voodoo dolls from scraps of hearsay and Newsweek articles, then needle the dolls to get a reaction. Others say libertarianism is passé — a mere echo of discredited Enlightenment thinking. Still others claim libertarianism is a dogma that could never exist in the “real world.”
This article is intended as a general antidote to these criticisms. But more than that, it’s an invitation. So feel free to bookmark it. Whenever one of your social network “friends” starts in on some rant, you can save time and simply link to this piece.
1. Myth: Libertarianism is about blind faith in market processes.
Libertarianism starts with skepticism about government power, not faith in markets. Because markets are just an abstraction, what we’re really talking about is decentralized people power. We do have faith in people because people can and do solve problems. Governments are people, too, of course. So the most basic question is: which form of organization does a better job of solving problems and making the world a better place — centralized organization or decentralized? In other words, why do libertarians prefer market processes to government power in most areas? Libertarians are skeptical of government power not merely because of Lord Acton’s admonition about “absolute power.” We also think voluntary association is pro-social.
When people work together voluntarily, they:
1) Have better incentives to achieve their goals — both private and common;
2) Don’t coerce each other, they convince each other (and persuasion is better than power);
3) Are the stuff of real economies and real communities, not some political contrivance;
4) Can more easily exit a group or a set of rules in order to try something new;
5) Tend to pay closer attention to those around them — like their family, neighbors and community.
2. Myth: Libertarians think there should be no government.
Some libertarians engage in philosophical debates about the possibility of no government. But most libertarians believe government should be restricted to certain basic things — namely those things that protect you and your neighbor’s life, liberty and property. So what are those things? Courts to settle disputes, enforce contracts and administer justice. A solid national defense should resist adventurism. A police force should protect us, but with limited powers and responsibilities. Any other purported responsibilities of government — like building roads and bridges — should at least be pushed down to the most local level possible. Big plans fail big. Small experiments fail small. Successful small experiments can be replicated after a process of trial and error.
3. Myth: Libertarians are selfish.
Some libertarians are selfish, but libertarians are no more likely to be selfish than non-libertarians. You see, libertarians don’t think compassion is something you leave at the voting booth. And if it’s compulsory, it’s not really compassion at all, is it? Self-interest is certainly a part of our worldview. To deny one’s natural inclinations toward pursuing happiness is just kooky asceticism (unless, of course, asceticism somehow makes you happy.) We also know prosperity is the result of “selfish” people going about their business — trucking, bartering and trading.
But people have selfless instincts, too. So how should people manifest those instincts, by actively looking after our neighbors or by watching MSNBC and bitching about the rich? Libertarians are charitable to the extent that human beings are charitable. We happen to think individuals are better at making decisions about charity than central authorities. In fact, we consider it morally lazy to conflate higher taxes and forced redistribution with compassion. And we consider it strange to justify coercion by appeal to compassion. Think about it: Would it be morally justified for me to walk up to a man on the street and hold him up at gunpoint if I planned to give his money to charity? If not, what does a mob of voters and a corruptible legislature add to this story?
4. Myth: Libertarians don’t care if poor people (especially children) starve and sick people die.
In the interests of some grand compromise, most libertarians would tolerate some sort of minimum income or safety net — but it would look nothing like the monstrous entitlement system we have today. I don’t want to be flippant. I’m using strong language because today’s entitlement state is truly monstrous. It creates a dependent underclass — i.e., folks essentially paid to be poor. Bizarrely, it forces younger, poorer people to pay for the pensions (Social Security) and healthcare of rich people in Boca Raton. And it corrupts/crowds out the philanthropic sector. Helping the poor with welfare is like putting out a fire with sweet crude.
5. Myth: Libertarians think people should be able to do whatever they want.
No. Libertarians think people should be able to do whatever they want as long as: they don’t harm others or others’ property; they are not contractually bound to forego certain activities; and their own freely chosen moral systems don’t proscribe it. On the latter: I know quite a few Mormon libertarians. They swear off caffeine, tobacco and alcohol. (These are some of my favorite vices!) But most Mormons don’t see it as the state’s responsibility to take care of my body or my spirit. It’s mine. By Mormon lights, I have to choose the straight and narrow for it to matter. Moral practice is both a private and social affair, to be sure. But “social” doesn’t extend to state power. It’s about the free formation of moral communities. What other kind of morality is there but the kind one chooses? State-enforced “good” has always ended up in varying degrees being on the wrong side of history — from the Inquisition to the Great Leap Forward. That is why, for libertarians, tolerance is a prime virtue.
6. Myth: Libertarians have a narrow “don’t tread on me” ethos.
Well, this isn’t a complete myth. Let’s just say it’s a myth of omission — that is, only part of the story. It’s true that in our guts we don’t want anyone to tell us what to do. We don’t think anyone should decide what we may put into our bodies, how to spend our money, or how to live our lives. We don’t want to be used as slave labor for all or part of the year. I guess we could be accused of sounding like most teenagers — only with a big caveat about personal responsibility.
But if we look at the whole libertarian ethos, we can see a corollary to the Gadsden flag motto: “Don’t tread on others.” In other words, Rabbi Hillel the Elder had it right more than 2,000 years ago when he said, “What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn.” On the other side of the world (at probably the exact same time) Lao-Tzu warned: “The more artificial taboos and restrictions there are in the world, the more the people are impoverished. … The more that laws and regulations are given prominence, the more thieves and robbers there will be.” It’s not that hard to understand why. If more people adhered to the “don’t tread” principle as a matter of ethics and of policy, there would be less treading-upon in the world. Far from being based in some Enlightenment fancy or tea party slogan, libertarianism is rooted in ancient truths about how people can achieve social harmony and prosperity.
7. Myth: Libertarians are corporate apologists.
To quote Bugs Bunny: “Eh, he don’t know me very well, do he?”
Libertarians and classical liberals from Adam Smith to Milton Friedman, James Madison to James Buchanan, and Frederic Bastiat to Friedrich Hayek have been warning us about corporations since there were corporations. It’s not that corporations are evil per se, however. Companies are just people cooperating for common goals. Bad things happen when corporations collude with the state against the people. When you hear the words “crony capitalism,” there is a 95 percent chance that’s coming from the mouth of a libertarian. That’s because liberals, conservatives and populists cannot so easily distance themselves from it. The left has had its Solyndras. The right has had its Halliburtons. Both tribes have had their banksters. And libertarians have had enough. We believe cronyism will destroy this Republic as surely as it destroyed Rome.
8. Myth: Libertarians agree on everything.
Here’s a mini top ten list of things about which libertarians are fairly divided:
1.) Immigration
2.) Austrian or Chicago economics
3.) Abortion
4.) Origin of rights
5.) The status of children and teenagers
6.) War and pacifism
7.) Strategy of reform
8.) Tactics of reform
9.) Whether to compromise
10.) Intellectual property rights
9. Myth: Libertarianism is untried and would never work.
I have two responses to this myth: The first is: “So you think this is working?” The second is: History has shown that, by degrees, the freer the people, the happier and more prosperous they are. I can say all of this with confidence because there is a strong correlation between freedom and prosperity. Just look at examples in the Fraser and Heritage economic freedom indices.
Now, if we thought something wouldn’t work because it was untried, we would not have most of the good things we enjoy today. Try telling Tim Berners-Lee circa 1988 that the Internet would never work: A fully decentralized information network used by billions of free people around the world without central control? My God, it’s untried!
10. Myth: Libertarianism is a “materialistic” worldview.
Saved this one for last. In fact, one of my friends skewered this turkey in his new book with great finesse: “‘Materialist values’ is a vague term, but if — as seems to be the case — [E.J.] Dionne thinks the chief justification for capitalism is that it generates lots of stuff for consumers, he’s mistaken,” writes Donald Boudreaux.
While capitalism emphatically does improve material living standards, all the great champions of economic freedom (a.k.a. capitalism) ultimately justify this system because only it affords true dignity to individuals — the dignity that is denied by interventionist systems which arbitrarily diminish each person’s freedom to choose. For “Progressives” such as Mr. Dionne not to share the value of freedom is fine. But it’s rather cheeky to accuse, with one breath, proponents of capitalism of being unduly focused on material goods, and with the next breath to insist that a major problem with capitalism is that some people get fewer material goods than do other people.Professor Boudreaux nails it. What we do with what’s left of our freedom may be materialistic, may be intellectual, and may even be spiritual. But it is not materialism that grounds our worldview. It is rather the powerful and ennobling idea that people are creative beings who should have the maximum possible latitude to pursue diverse conceptions of happiness and the good.
But, but …
I can hear all the “buts” now. People should ask themselves three fundamental questions before launching into any critique of libertarianism:
1.) In your heart, do you prefer persuasion and cooperation over power and coercion? If no, then read no further. If yes …
2.) In forming your opinions about the role of government — whatever they are — have you exhausted every other means of achieving some good end before turning to state coercion? If no, then try being more creative and entrepreneurial before rashly turning to power. If yes …
3.) Are you even a little closer to understanding the libertarian worldview than you were before?
Max Borders is author of the forthcoming “Superwealth: Why we should stop worrying about the gap between rich and poor.” Contact him if you want a reminder when the book is out.
Saturday, June 30, 2012
An explanation of interest
The Creature From Jekyll Island (pp. 191-192):
WHO CREATES THE MONEY TO PAY THE INTEREST?
One of the most perplexing questions associated with this proc-
ess is "Where does the money come from to pay the interest?" If you borrow $10,000 from a bank at 9%, you owe $10,900. But the bank only manufactures $10,000 for the loan. It would seem, therefore, that there is no way that you-and all others with similar loans- can possibly payoff your indebtedness. The amount of money put into circulation just isn't enough to cover the total debt, including interest. This has led some to the conclusion that it is necessary for
you to borrow the $900 for the interest, and that, in turn, leads to still more interest. The assumption is that, the more we borrow, the more we have to borrow, and that debt based on fiat money is a never-ending spiral leading inexorably to more and more debt.
This is a partial truth. It is true that there is not enough money created to include the interest, but it is a fallacy that the only way to pay it back is to borrow still more. The assumption fails to take into account the exchange value of labor. Let us assume that you pay back your $10,000 loan at the rate of approximately $900 per month and that about $80 of that represents interest. You realize you are hard pressed to make your payments so you decide to take on a part-time job.
The bank, on the other hand, is now making $80 profit
each month on your loan. Since this amount is classified as "interest," it is not extinguished as is the larger portion which is a return of the loan itself. So this remains as spendable money in the account of the bank. The decision then is made to have the bank's floors waxed once a week. You respond to the ad in the paper and are hired at $80 per month to do the job. The result is that you earn the money to pay the interest on your loan, and-this is the point-the
money you receive is the same money which you previously had paid. As long as you perform labor for the bank each month, the same dollars go into the bank as interest, then out the revolving door as your wages, and then back into the bank as loan repayment.
It is not necessary that you work directly for the bank. No matter where you earn the money, its origin was a bank and its ultimate destination is a bank.
The loop through which it travels can be large or small, but the fact remains all interest is paid eventually by human effort. And the significance of that fact is even more startling than the assumption that not enough money is created to pay back the interest. It is that the total of this human effort ultimately is for
the benefit of those who create fiat money. It is a form of modern serfdom in which the great mass of society works as indentured servants to a ruling class of financial nobility.
WHO CREATES THE MONEY TO PAY THE INTEREST?
One of the most perplexing questions associated with this proc-
ess is "Where does the money come from to pay the interest?" If you borrow $10,000 from a bank at 9%, you owe $10,900. But the bank only manufactures $10,000 for the loan. It would seem, therefore, that there is no way that you-and all others with similar loans- can possibly payoff your indebtedness. The amount of money put into circulation just isn't enough to cover the total debt, including interest. This has led some to the conclusion that it is necessary for
you to borrow the $900 for the interest, and that, in turn, leads to still more interest. The assumption is that, the more we borrow, the more we have to borrow, and that debt based on fiat money is a never-ending spiral leading inexorably to more and more debt.
This is a partial truth. It is true that there is not enough money created to include the interest, but it is a fallacy that the only way to pay it back is to borrow still more. The assumption fails to take into account the exchange value of labor. Let us assume that you pay back your $10,000 loan at the rate of approximately $900 per month and that about $80 of that represents interest. You realize you are hard pressed to make your payments so you decide to take on a part-time job.
The bank, on the other hand, is now making $80 profit
each month on your loan. Since this amount is classified as "interest," it is not extinguished as is the larger portion which is a return of the loan itself. So this remains as spendable money in the account of the bank. The decision then is made to have the bank's floors waxed once a week. You respond to the ad in the paper and are hired at $80 per month to do the job. The result is that you earn the money to pay the interest on your loan, and-this is the point-the
money you receive is the same money which you previously had paid. As long as you perform labor for the bank each month, the same dollars go into the bank as interest, then out the revolving door as your wages, and then back into the bank as loan repayment.
It is not necessary that you work directly for the bank. No matter where you earn the money, its origin was a bank and its ultimate destination is a bank.
The loop through which it travels can be large or small, but the fact remains all interest is paid eventually by human effort. And the significance of that fact is even more startling than the assumption that not enough money is created to pay back the interest. It is that the total of this human effort ultimately is for
the benefit of those who create fiat money. It is a form of modern serfdom in which the great mass of society works as indentured servants to a ruling class of financial nobility.
Friday, May 25, 2012
Copycat's Guide to Left-Wing Troll Hunting.
(from an old forum post)
If you spend much time in political forums, or any forum, really, you have no doubt encountered that bane of rational thought and discussion, the Troll. This is a creature who feeds off the chaos and discord caused by his thoughtless, and irrational posts. Wikipedia defines a Troll as:
"someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."
Some have slightly different definitions, but that one covers the basics.
For more information, visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)
The aim of these guidelines is to help you deal with a particular species of troll, the liberal-progressive (LP) political troll (Trollus liberalus-ignoramous).
To Identify this type, we will start with the most obvious aspects, and work to the most subtle. This is because there are differing levels of the manefestation of the characteristics, and it can sometimes be difficult to distinguish a liberal troll from a well-meaning, but mentally deficient human liberal,or a true liberal (see Dr. Rubenproven's work on the subject)
an LP troll may:
-Attack the character of the other participants, or call them names.
-Ignore sited information and scientific proofs as "conservative propaganda"(see climategate)
-Blame Bush (whether Bush has any bearing on the matter or not)
-Change the subject of the debate. This happens when the troll nears his "blank out" point (the point at which any logic the troll's argument had deviates from his rhetoric) or when the consequences go beyond the 1 or 2 steps that the troll has considered (google unintended consequences for examples).
Remember, the troll feeds off emotional response. So NEVER show emotion. Structure your arguments logically, never accept a faulty premise, and most of all, have fun. Troll hunting can be a good oppurtunity to hone your debating skills, while impressing the other participants of the community.
Here are some methods to use when troll hunting.
-Stick to answering 1 thread and subject at a time. Don't let the opponent shift the subject.
-Whenever possible, argue the underlying principle instead of the specific issue. using extreme examples of the principle behind your opponent's argument, you force him to either admit the absurdity, or defend it.
-Try to form questions in the form: "why should you do x for me?" This forces him to defend his premise while fighting his own inate selfishness.
-If the opponent makes a good specific point which conflicts with principle, acknowledge the point, but point out the conflict.
-Try to set ground rules with your opponent, and point out violations.
-Try to get the opponent to agree on a premise, then show how their argument contradicts the premise they agreed to.
-Use sarcasm, silliness, or ridicule sparingly, if at all.
-Never attack your opponent, attack his argument. No name calling.
-Whenever possible, use the "desert island" analogy. This gets all "laws" out of the way, and forces the consideration of only the rights involved.
-Everything can be related to the free market, you just have to follow the logic to its conclusion.
-Point out that every person will act in a way to increase his happiness, even if he considers that happiness to be the "warm fuzzy feeling" of helping his fellow man. Some consider wealth as happiness.
Most importantly, NEVER call a troll a troll. This is what they want, and counts as name calling. If you do this, you have lost the argument and the troll has just had a hearty meal that will sustain him for many posts to come.
I hope this guide helps you to understand and defeat the next troll you encounter. It could save your sanity.
If you spend much time in political forums, or any forum, really, you have no doubt encountered that bane of rational thought and discussion, the Troll. This is a creature who feeds off the chaos and discord caused by his thoughtless, and irrational posts. Wikipedia defines a Troll as:
"someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."
Some have slightly different definitions, but that one covers the basics.
For more information, visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)
The aim of these guidelines is to help you deal with a particular species of troll, the liberal-progressive (LP) political troll (Trollus liberalus-ignoramous).
To Identify this type, we will start with the most obvious aspects, and work to the most subtle. This is because there are differing levels of the manefestation of the characteristics, and it can sometimes be difficult to distinguish a liberal troll from a well-meaning, but mentally deficient human liberal,or a true liberal (see Dr. Rubenproven's work on the subject)
an LP troll may:
-Attack the character of the other participants, or call them names.
-Ignore sited information and scientific proofs as "conservative propaganda"(see climategate)
-Blame Bush (whether Bush has any bearing on the matter or not)
-Change the subject of the debate. This happens when the troll nears his "blank out" point (the point at which any logic the troll's argument had deviates from his rhetoric) or when the consequences go beyond the 1 or 2 steps that the troll has considered (google unintended consequences for examples).
Remember, the troll feeds off emotional response. So NEVER show emotion. Structure your arguments logically, never accept a faulty premise, and most of all, have fun. Troll hunting can be a good oppurtunity to hone your debating skills, while impressing the other participants of the community.
Here are some methods to use when troll hunting.
-Stick to answering 1 thread and subject at a time. Don't let the opponent shift the subject.
-Whenever possible, argue the underlying principle instead of the specific issue. using extreme examples of the principle behind your opponent's argument, you force him to either admit the absurdity, or defend it.
-Try to form questions in the form: "why should you do x for me?" This forces him to defend his premise while fighting his own inate selfishness.
-If the opponent makes a good specific point which conflicts with principle, acknowledge the point, but point out the conflict.
-Try to set ground rules with your opponent, and point out violations.
-Try to get the opponent to agree on a premise, then show how their argument contradicts the premise they agreed to.
-Use sarcasm, silliness, or ridicule sparingly, if at all.
-Never attack your opponent, attack his argument. No name calling.
-Whenever possible, use the "desert island" analogy. This gets all "laws" out of the way, and forces the consideration of only the rights involved.
-Everything can be related to the free market, you just have to follow the logic to its conclusion.
-Point out that every person will act in a way to increase his happiness, even if he considers that happiness to be the "warm fuzzy feeling" of helping his fellow man. Some consider wealth as happiness.
Most importantly, NEVER call a troll a troll. This is what they want, and counts as name calling. If you do this, you have lost the argument and the troll has just had a hearty meal that will sustain him for many posts to come.
I hope this guide helps you to understand and defeat the next troll you encounter. It could save your sanity.
Sunday, April 1, 2012
How broccoli IS like health insurance
There has been some talk (and much ridicule) about Justice Scalia's use of the "broccoli defense". Proponents of the Affordable Care Act have used the argument that health insurance is different, because not buying health insurance raises the cost because of the increased average risk of the pool, and therefore the cost to those who wish to buy insurance. They argue that not buying broccoli decreases the price because it signals decreased demand. To which, I quote Bastiat, "Stop there! your theory is confined to that which is seen; it takes no account of that which is not seen."
Let us say that I am a health enthusiast, exercising, eating healthy foods, working hard to avoid all manner of risk to my life and health. Let us say that you take no greater care than that of the average person for your health. You are slightly overweight, you rarely exercise, in any meaningful sense, your diet is just slightly, but not too far on the unhealthy side. Also, you HATE broccoli.
Assuming the ACA is in effect:
By not taking active care of your health, you are increasing the average risk of the pool, and therefore the cost to the other members who are forced to purchase the insurance. This is the same exact argument used to mandate the purchase of the insurance, in the first place. This argument could also be used to justify mandating that you exercise, outlawing activities which might injure you, outlawing (or taxing) certain foods that you enjoy and forcing you to not only buy, but eat, more healthy foods, including your hated, broccoli.
Let us say that I am a health enthusiast, exercising, eating healthy foods, working hard to avoid all manner of risk to my life and health. Let us say that you take no greater care than that of the average person for your health. You are slightly overweight, you rarely exercise, in any meaningful sense, your diet is just slightly, but not too far on the unhealthy side. Also, you HATE broccoli.
Assuming the ACA is in effect:
By not taking active care of your health, you are increasing the average risk of the pool, and therefore the cost to the other members who are forced to purchase the insurance. This is the same exact argument used to mandate the purchase of the insurance, in the first place. This argument could also be used to justify mandating that you exercise, outlawing activities which might injure you, outlawing (or taxing) certain foods that you enjoy and forcing you to not only buy, but eat, more healthy foods, including your hated, broccoli.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Healthcare Reform: A framework
1. Make it easy to start an unlimited, tax free medical savings account (minimal paperwork). This encourages those who can, to save for their own routine medical care.
2. Prohibit full coverage of medical bills under 10k(yearly). This encourages the patient to pay attention to the cost of his care, but allows for serious conditions to be addressed before they become catastrophic.
3. Prohibit coverage of doctor visits. This forces patients to pay attention to the cost of their routine care and shop around for the best value, lowering prices as doctors compete for patients.
4. Tax forgiveness for donations to medical charities, similar to the school choice scholarship vouchers in Arizona.[1] These charities might use means testing to ensure that the person is not scamming the system (you prove you need help). This allows a taxpayer to direct his tax money directly to funding the medical care of others. Charities should be prohibited from using more than 10% of donations on administration and other costs. This takes care of those who cannot afford routine care, and could possibly pay for catastrophic insurance (or care) for those in need.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_choice#Tuition_tax_credits_2
2. Prohibit full coverage of medical bills under 10k(yearly). This encourages the patient to pay attention to the cost of his care, but allows for serious conditions to be addressed before they become catastrophic.
3. Prohibit coverage of doctor visits. This forces patients to pay attention to the cost of their routine care and shop around for the best value, lowering prices as doctors compete for patients.
4. Tax forgiveness for donations to medical charities, similar to the school choice scholarship vouchers in Arizona.[1] These charities might use means testing to ensure that the person is not scamming the system (you prove you need help). This allows a taxpayer to direct his tax money directly to funding the medical care of others. Charities should be prohibited from using more than 10% of donations on administration and other costs. This takes care of those who cannot afford routine care, and could possibly pay for catastrophic insurance (or care) for those in need.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_choice#Tuition_tax_credits_2
An Obamacare Riddle
If everyone must get health insurance, or pay a penalty, and the legal rationale for this mandate is that everyone enters the health care market and either has insurance, or costs others (free rider).
If I am wealthy enough to self insure (I keep money in reserve to pay for all my health care costs), the "free rider" argument cannot be applied to me, because I transfer no burden to others when I use healthcare. I therefore do not affect interstate commerce (as argued by the government) beforehand (I am not purchasing anything), or after the fact (I transfer no burden to others).
I also have not purchased a government approved healthcare policy, an offense, for which others are subject to a penalty.
If the government's argument for their power to regulate non activity as commerce does not apply to me, then I am not subject to the law, because it is (by their own argument) beyond their authority to apply it to me. If I am not subject to the law, and another person is subject to the law, then it is a violation of the "equal protection" clause of the 14th amendment.
The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution contains the clause:
"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
If I am, subject to the penalty and the law, regardless of the government's authority to apply it to me, then it violates the "without due process" clause of the same amendment.
Assume that I do not qualify for a waiver.
Question:
Am I subject to the penalty, and therefore the law?
If I am wealthy enough to self insure (I keep money in reserve to pay for all my health care costs), the "free rider" argument cannot be applied to me, because I transfer no burden to others when I use healthcare. I therefore do not affect interstate commerce (as argued by the government) beforehand (I am not purchasing anything), or after the fact (I transfer no burden to others).
I also have not purchased a government approved healthcare policy, an offense, for which others are subject to a penalty.
If the government's argument for their power to regulate non activity as commerce does not apply to me, then I am not subject to the law, because it is (by their own argument) beyond their authority to apply it to me. If I am not subject to the law, and another person is subject to the law, then it is a violation of the "equal protection" clause of the 14th amendment.
The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution contains the clause:
"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
If I am, subject to the penalty and the law, regardless of the government's authority to apply it to me, then it violates the "without due process" clause of the same amendment.
Assume that I do not qualify for a waiver.
Question:
Am I subject to the penalty, and therefore the law?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)