Response: Wretched TSA...

Tim,
Ron Paul stood on the floor of the House making his impassioned and principled speech and proposed a bill that he KNOWS will not be passed through into law.  As you say, legislative victories are not the only way to create change.  In fact as I see it, legislative victories are a good measure of how insidious and corrupt a politician is.  How much has this congressmen been influenced by lobbyists?

I was speaking with a pilot friend of mine the other day and he said that the pilots union is using this video in a message to all the pilots who are members.  The pilots are being told under no circumstances should they go through a scanner or be humiliated in front of the long line of customers as their junk is touched.  This video has generated over 250,000 views on youtube. 

In this Bloomberg article, a poll taken on Dec 4-7 shows that the 39 percent of Americans want to see more oversight of the Fed and 16 percent want to see it abolished outright (I'm in that 16 percent).

My point is this: two or four years ago nobody was talking about the Federal Reserve.  Since Ron Paul's book "End the Fed" debuted at number six on the New York Times Bestsellers list, awareness of our dubious and secret central bank has bloomed, as has the likelihood of real change.   In fact, as it states in the Bloomberg piece, "Ron Paul was picked to head the House Financial Services subcommittee that oversees the central bank."  Very good. 
   
Ron Paul has gotten very little legislation passed through both houses over his terms as a congressman.  But to me, those tiny numbers say there is at least one Statesman who is able to resist the powerful pull of lobbyists.

Can you think of a legislator with copious "notches on their bedpost" who you see as having helped us?

Sweet!

French women are beautiful, no?

http://davidvincentwolf.com/notes/22611-land-of-the-free

In case you have missed it, this is a reference to the TSA X-ray scanners being used in airport security screening now.

The Wretched TSA: Save US, Ron Paul!

The Transportation Safety Administration (TSA) was formed in direct response to the terrorist attacks on 9/11. Security at airports until this point had been handled by relatively private companies hired by the airports. Airports security is now handled exclusively by the U.S. government, funded by the taxpayers. Passenger safety being paramount, it's clearly the role of the government to keep us safe, right?  But has this worked?  A resounding Hell, No!!

All this agency has accomplished is to whittle away at private citizens civil rights and private property rights.  People are no longer allowed to enter into a voluntary contract with and airline without being treated as a guilty murderer who must prove ones innocence.

You will hear certain sheep, I mean people, who say that these are all sacrifices we must make to live in a free society.  Bull crap!!

When the guy with the crappy shoe bomb slipped past the "brilliant" TSA thugs, they made us start taking off our shoes.  Then, when the guy with crappy underwear bomb slipped passed these same high school bully drop out security screeners, they demanded to see us naked!  And now, if you decide that you want to "opt out" of this and do not want to be seen completely naked by some creep behind closed doors taking pictures of you with their cell phone camera, you will have to go through and new and enhanced pat down procedure.  This is were they grab your genitals and squeeze your boobs!  I love freedom!  Guess what happens if, once in security, you decide that you don't want any of this to happen and you want to leave?  You can't turn back. That's right, you will be placed in hand cuffs and arrested! 

In response to these totalitarian measures, Ron Paul has once again come to the rescue of our personal freedom and constitutional rights! In an impassioned plea on the floor of the Congress, he says "enough is enough" and "its time to shrug off the shackles!"  In the following video, the gentleman from Texas rises to endorse civil disobedience on  Nov. 24th's "National Nude Scanner Opt Out Day" and to introduce H.R. 6416 (The American Traveler Dignity Act).




The text of the bill is here:

A BILL

To ensure that certain Federal employees cannot hide behind immunity.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. NO IMMUNITY FOR CERTAIN AIRPORT SCREENING METHODS.

No law of the United States shall be construed to confer any immunity for a Federal employee or agency or any individual or entity that receives Federal funds, who subjects an individual to any physical contact (including contact with any clothing the individual is wearing), x-rays, or millimeter waves, or aids in the creation of or views a representation of any part of a individual's body covered by clothing as a condition for such individual to be in an airport or to fly in an aircraft. The preceding sentence shall apply even if the individual or the individual's parent, guardian, or any other individual gives consent.

(Campaign For Liberty website)

Never mind the violations of civil liberties, it is ludicrous to attempt to stop terrorists in this fashion. Instead, let's try eliminating some of the reasons for young men to strap bombs to themselves and kill a bunch of innocent people. The underwear bomber specifically cited the unmanned drone attacks on Yemen as the motivation for his attempted suicide attack; immediately cease all unmanned drone attacks and bring home all our troops from all around the world. Take away the incentives.

A time lapse halloween

This guy combines a couple very cool things to make a great thing.  He sets up a time lapse of himself carving a pumpkin with Ron Paul's face on it.  What makes this great however, is the audio he puts the film to.  Ron Paul asks congress What If? in the most passionate, principled and spot on correct anti-war speech likely ever made on that most dubious floor.  Take a look and listen:

A "fair market"

The other night I was driving by the largest agricultural fair in New England on a busy Friday night.  This fair runs the whole first week of October.   I have driven by this fair many, many times in my life and I noticed something each time about the prime parking spots near the entrance gates.  These spots happen to be on the lawns of the people that live proximal to the fairgrounds.  Depending on the time of the day, the day of the week, and even the weather, the cost of a parking spot changes.  On a rainy Tuesday midday it might be 4 dollars to park, but in the last Saturday night of the fair, you are likely to pay 12 to 15 dollars.

What I like about this is that I see it as analogous to the way prices fluctuate in a voluntary free market based on demand.  You can park a mile down the road for free, but if you just drove for 4 hours, 10 dollars does not seem that hefty a fee to be a 1 minute walk to the gate and the peace of mind that your car is safe. 

A colorful chart

A cheery interpretation of Americas perception of the other guys.

Rhetoric - Per Usual

I find it absolutely ridiculous that the President claimed to be ending the combat mission in Iraq.  Bullshit.  50,000 armed troops that shoot people are combatants.  No two ways about it.  You can call them Buzzulwhips, but that does not mean they aren't combat troops.  My point is that this is just more of the same old rhetoric from a crappy career politician who doesn't mind having blood all over his hands.

This month there have been at least 20 unmanned drone bombings in Pakistan (I say at least because there are no "real" numbers on these secret missions being carried out under executive order).  This sucks!  Bombs are falling from space and landing on innocent people!  This is murder!  Arghhh!

Idiotic Republicrat Partisanship

In this video blog by Jack Hunter (I really like his writing, very clear and poignant), the author points out some of the ridiculous partisanship displayed by both parties and their loyal supporters.  The most important point, however, is how hypocritical and counterproductive the "patriotic" right supporters are in their indignation over trivial issues within the current administration (for example, Michelle Obama's trip to Europe).  As Mr. Hunter explains, many of the problems the right takes issue with can be traced back to the Bush years.  Massive expansion of the federal gov't is a most un-conservative ideal.  Explain, then, the perpetual chant of War, War, War, No Child Left Behind!

America the Benevolent

A Growing Leak

By now, anyone who is reading this blog has certainly heard about the 92,000 classified government documents - exposed and posted on the website Wikileaks- linked to the horrible mistakes and failures of the American military occupation of Afghanistan. Many of these documents shed light on failed unmanned drone attacks, faulty intelligence that led to the massacre of women and children, and the number of U.S. troops killed by weapons that the U.S. supplied to Afghanistan 20 years ago. Needless to say, the Pentagon wants it to all go away.  This relatively new "leaks" phenomenon brings up a few points that I think relate nicely to many of the hot topics on this blog.

1.  Conspiracy Theories.  An unfortunate but vociferous side of the libertarian movement that has caused me much consternation over the years is the conspiracy theorist/junk science/quack medicine crowd; if only they could apply the same logical tools outside the realm of economics, too.  With the near-constant stream of  classified information being leaked all over the internet, it would seem that by now some ground breaking tidbit should have surfaced regarding the 9/11 attacks in New York City.  Since 9/11, the government has ballooned, and with it vast numbers of bureaucrats who have access to classified information are starting to feel the need to expose bad things.  In this article, Glen Greenwald writes about the recent expose by the Washington Post regarding the Dept. of Homeland Security.  How many years will these people hold on to their crazy notions while all around them actual conspiracies are being debunked left and right? Three years?  Seven years?  And if ghosts exist, if bigfoot exists, if the Lake Champlain sea monster exists, why haven't we seen any high quality, undeniable proof?  I mean, we can now see a three-ton great white shark leap 14 feet out of the air while hunting seals!  We caught that on film - super slow-mo, for that matter!  If indeed there is any credibility to any of the claims made by these conspiracy theorists, we should start seeing some hard evidence pretty soon.

2. Police Brutality.  In this video, one of countless finding their way on to the web, a large cop body slams an innocent bicycle rider to the ground. 


In this video, which, be warned is kind of disturbing, a 57-year-old black woman gets tazered 12 times at her own home by a young jackass cop.  This was filmed by the cop's camera, but somehow ended up on Youtube.


Now these crimes - yes, crimes - carried out by government thugs are becoming viral on the internet and are no longer simply first person anecdotes passed on word of mouth.  In the cases of both of these videos, the thugs were fired. Unfortunately, they can't be sent to jail because they can hide behind the badge.
Patri Friedman, the grandson of Milton Friedman and author of Beyond Folk Activism, one of the more brilliant and important political documents written in the last hundred years, talks about the importance of changing incentives and not minds.  I think this is a fine example of that theory.  You can write to your congressman five times a day for the next four years, but one devastating upload on Wikileaks or Youtube can do more in ten seconds than all of your impassioned letters will ever do.  Suddenly, there is an avenue for people to get these terrible police officers fired immediately and to try and make sure they never carry a gun under the auspices of public service again.

3. The Media.  Why, might you ask, does it take one disgruntled soldier to expose those horrible truths about the war in Afghanistan when there are so many newspapers, cable television news channels and radio news channels that we pay for?  Simply, incentives.  Reporters in the mainstream media are far too worried about being ostracized from their crowd and put on the black list at the correspondents' dinner to actually tell any truths.  If you were to read antiwar.com regularly, these leaks come as no surprise to you.  This is SOP, standard operating procedure, for an empire at war.  The war reporters associated with antiwar.com have been pumping this stuff out since their inception.  With one click of the mouse, Wikileaks did more to inform the public of the secret horrors of war than any of the major media outlets have in the past seven or eight years.

Expect more and more and more terrible truths about the military evils of the American Empire to become exposed over the next few years.  I can only hope that with all these leaks and videos and documents, Americans become really aware and demand CHANGE!

War News is Bad News

Idly scanning the local newspaper this morning, I came across three blurbs from the Associated Press regarding America's ever growing foreign military engagements.

1.  It seems that the U.S. is performing military "exercises" with a nuclear-powered war ship off the coast of North Korea.  South Korea is participating in these exercises with the U.S.  This action seems to be in response to the North Korean attack in March that sank a South Korean warship, killing 46 sailors.  North Korea is evidently "enraged" by these actions.  North Korea attacked a warship from South Korea, so America sends in the Navy?  What the hell is going on?  Why is this our fight?  And does it make sense to be enraging the incredibly unstable dictator of that nation, who happens to have in his possession nuclear warheads?

2.  Former chief of the CIA Michael Hayden is now saying that a military strike against Iran "seems inexorable" due to the fact that Tehran keeps pushing ahead with its suspected nuclear program.  The fact of the matter is that Iran is a very poor country with an incredibly weak military.  And why is it that we and our friends the Russians get to have nuclear weapons when other countries can't?  Surely it can't be the benevolent record our two countries have around the world. America is the bully on the playground who goes around beating up little kids.  Does it make sense to invade yet another Middle Eastern country?  How has that worked for us thus far?  I also wonder if Iran's proximity to our friend - their rival - Israel has anything to do with this supposedly unavoidable attack.  But the drum of war with Iran has been beating in Washington for a long time now, so what should we expect?

3.  A U.S. drone fired missiles at two houses, killing 12 "militants" in Pakistan.  In the past two years, there have been more than a hundred of these unmanned drone attacks in Pakistan carried out by the U.S.  These are most insidious and counter-productive for a couple of reasons.  Time and again it turns out that the intelligence was wrong and that the house was filled with women and children!  This new information from WikiLeaks tells that story.   U.S. missiles are blowing up houses full of innocent people!  If that makes you and me this mad, imagine how pissed the Pakistani people must be?  These are bombs coming basically from space with absolutely no warning and no possible chance of immediate retaliation.  Talk about terrorist recruitment!  Let's make it easier for the Taliban and Al-Qaeda!  And our government and people continue to be dumbfounded as to why anyone would possibly want to attack America.

It's a good thing that everyone voted for change and hope.  That's really paying off, eh?

Cartoonin

This is a very brief and nerdy summation of the dubious fiat currency system that somehow works on religious type faith in this country.  YOUR DOLLAR IS NOT WORTH A DOLLAR!!!

Political Opposites Team Up!

Congressman Barney Frank (D) of Massachusetts and Congressman Ron Paul (R) of Texas have teamed up and are calling for an immense cut in military spending by the United States.  Paul and Frank say that by eliminating most of the unnecessary military bases and troop presences around the world (all over Europe, Japan, South Korea, etc. etc.), the government could save and estimated one trillion dollars! 

This development is of particular interest to me, in part because of the somewhat unholy alliance between two congressmen whose political and economic philosophies are quite different from one another. Frank is a supporter of government intervention into the economy, while Paul is a proponent of the Austrian School of Economics and truly free-market-based solutions. (Note that this isn't the first time that Rep. Paul has joined forces with a congressman from the "opposite" end of the political spectrum: See my post, Audit the Fed Bill Gutted!, for more about Paul's work with Sen. Bernie Sanders.)

This unusual collaboration speaks to the priority of the issue. Both men understand plainly that the American empire is vastly over-extended and that if there is not a concerted effort to reign in the beast, it will, like all empires throughout history, collapse. 

In the following clip from CNN, Wolf Blitzer (what a great football name!) interviews the two of them on this issue. It is a good interview as a whole (it is in two parts), but I really like (at 4:44) the way Frank responds to the ignorant claim being made that if we pull out of Afghanistan, we will just allow the terrorists to gain strength and establish training grounds: He is in agreement with Ron Paul in asserting that even if we were able to gain complete control of Afghanistan, the terrorists would simply relocate to Yemen, Sudan, Somalia, etc. I love when Frank says he wishes "nuclear submarines could defeat terrorism, because we have all of the nuclear submarines, and we would have beat it." Unfortunately, it doesn't work like that. 

The strategic significance of such a momentous shift in US foreign policy goes beyond the vast - and obvious - initial economic savings. If we pull out of all of these countries, we inherently make ourselves less vulnerable to terror attacks: For one, we would suddenly give unstable regions and impoverished populations less of a reason to hate us so much, making recruiting harder for terrorists; and second, we would have much more money available to invest in a legitimate national defense.
 

This recent proposal highlights yet another difference between Ron Paul and everyone else.  Let's see one of the "intellectual" leaders of the Tea Party movement team up with an openly gay socialist from Taxachussetts for the express purpose of ending war!  Hell yeah, Ron Paul!

Make sure to look at 4:44 if you can't watch the entire interview.

Drug Laws Debunked!

Complete drug decriminalization/legalization is a topic I have already posted about but want to revisit because it is one of the more counter-intuitive and controversial conversations. I am of the opinion that all drugs should be legal; if you, me or your cousin wants heroin, we should be able to go to the drug store and buy it. That we should be able to does not mean that we should, and it is the heinous nature of drug abuse that makes legalization so counter-intuitive for the majority of us.  I want to be clear that by advocating for drug decriminalization, I am in no way condoning drug use.

"Legalize all drugs? You must be crazy!" you are saying.  "Drug use will skyrocket and the streets will be consumed by twitched out addicts desperately searching for another fix."  Well, as you might expect, I have found a few videos that prove the opposite, with clear empirical evidence.

Drugs of all varieties were decriminalized in the country of Portugal eight years ago, and the results have been pretty definitive. 

In this first one by the BBC news (hmm... sounds legitimate), I think one of the most crucial points is that since drug legalization, the number of people being treated for heroin addiction has risen. When there is absolutely no fear of jail, I think drug addicts are more likely to seek treatment because their condition is seen as a medical issue, not a criminal offense.



In this fantastic interview from Reason.tv with Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com, Greenwald raises several key points and provides viewers with a libertarian argument for natural rights.  His assessment of Portugal's severe drug problem in the nineties is particularly revealing; the more the Portuguese government criminalized drugs, the more usage increased.





It will be interesting to see if the California ballot measure regarding the complete decriminalization of marijuana will pass this fall.  If it does, I think we will start to see many more states fall in line: Increased tax revenues and less "crime" in California - the criminal justice system and prisons are a huge money suck! - would bring about a kind of market response as people pushed for similar results in their own states. Individual states have the right to nullify overreaching federal law.( Nullification of bad laws is a subject I will explore in future posts.)

For the throngs of readers who have been desperately seeking a new post, I apologize for the delay.  The two of you can get back to reading.

Interested In?

If you like some of what you have read here, look into the work of Murray N. Rothbard.   He was prolific!  Here is a nice article about him.

Right to Discriminate - Continued

A reader linked an article by Tim Wise in the comments section of my last post.  The title of the post was Rationalizing White Supremacy, Racism, Free Markets and the Morally Obtuse Rand Paul. There is a close up of him holding his temple.

As one of Tim Wise's (did he name himself that?) unmentioned "nary a black libertarian" Larry Elder puts it,

"Constitutional rights extend to both saints and sinners and those in between, no matter the outrage... 

This is freedom 101.

It is this freedom to discriminate that enabled Black Entertainment Television founder Robert Johnson to become a billionaire through the use of race-based programming. It is this freedom that allows the Miss Black America beauty pageant to exclude non-black applicants."

Read his great article here. 


From this very eloquent article written by Lew Rockwell,

"Referencing the great controversy about the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Karen De Coster put the issue to rest by turning Rachel Maddow's question on its head. She [Maddow] demanded to know whether a white businessman has the right to refuse service to a black man. Karen asked, does a black businessman have the right to refuse service to a Klan member? "  


I really think this gets to the heart of the subject very quickly.  What does Tim Wise have to say to this I wonder?

  

More from Lew,

"...It is the same with college admissions, church membership, fraternities, civic clubs, and nearly every other association. They all exercise the right to exclude. It is central to the organization of every aspect of life. If this right is denied, what do we get in its place? Coercion and compulsion. People are forced together by the state, with one group required at the point of a gun to serve another group."

Stossel writes in regard to the cries that Fox needs to fire him for his racist comments,

"It wasn't free markets in the South that perpetuated racism. It was government colluding with private individuals (some in the KKK) to intimidate those who would have integrated.
It was private action that started challenging the racists, and it was succeeding—four years before the Civil Rights Act passed."


Tim Wise is undertaking a very important and difficult task.  He is trying through his writing, teaching, and lecturing to eliminate, or at least minimize racism.  I think that is a wonderful thing, and the article he wrote is very clearly written for his point.  Unfortunately, Mr. Wise's point in this case is that all libertarians are white supremacist nut jobs who know absolutely nothing about the way the "real" world works and are morally corrupt weak-minded simps.  Tim Wise is the clearly the product of the states' self propagating education system and is ignorantly suckling on the teat that is government=panacea.  The ridiculusly ingrained confirmation bias that markets=evil is so pervasive in this type of writing, but at least its consistent.

As a friend wrote in an email disscusing this subject


"It was government that institutionalized slavery.
It was government that institutionalized segregation in the south.
It took private citizens and market pressures (Frederich Douglas, ML King, Rosa Parks, Jackie Robinson, etc.) to overcome these abhorrent injustices"


Reader Tim writes
"I often wonder if such rigid adherence to a way of thinking and focus on consistency can hamper ones ability to react to certain situations and deal with issues"


I think examining this subject with the consistent and principled eye for natural rights and property rights has allowed me to further understand this topic and its relative importance regarding anarcho-capatilism and truly free market economics. I must say, a big reason for that is the reading of links readers have sent and the comments themselves.  Thank you both for that.   


Libertarianism by its very nature is anti-racist!  The focus is on the individual, and the racist focuses on a group. 


Having said all of this, what we are discussing was a small part of a huge law that was passed almost 50 years ago which will never change.  

Hope for Change

                         Can you see any differences?  Point them out if you can.

Follow Up - The Right to Discriminate

The comments made by a reader regarding my most recent post, warrant a reply post, as I believe there is some fundamental confusion regarding this issue.  I am encountering similar misunderstanding in my non-line conversations as well.

The reader writes, "...but the majority of the criticism that I read did not focus on whether or not Paul is racist but on the accuracy of his statements and his understanding of history."
I am not sure what you mean by this.  When Paul said he believes that business owners have the right to discriminate, he was charged with being a racist.  That was the focus of outrage.  As I mentioned in the main post, he strongly supports most of the civil rights legislation.  Let me make this very clear, I do not like Rand Paul and the way he is handling this!  Instead of using his abundant face time on cable news shows to hammer home this one CORRECT point about private property rights, he is sheepishly backing away from his previous statements and acting just like a politician.  This strategy will likely help him get elected, but in doing so his is compromising what principles he appeared to have.  His father would educate and stick to his guns.  I defend the statements he made, not him or his candidacy for Senate.

"...I think it's important to note that he was being criticized by many members of his own party."
I guess that I haven't been clear enough about my disdain for both the Republicans and the Democrats. Republicrats, whats the difference really?  Anytime you can be distanced from either of these parties, it is a good thing.  I'll note that the republicans who were doing this are strictly playing moderate politics, fishing for that optimum number of votes. 

"but Stossel and Paul are simply wrong in believing that free markets would have eliminated problems of extreme discrimination and racism that existed in this country not too long ago."
No one is making this outrages claim.  What Stossel is trying to say is that the market would not allow for this kind widespread racial and religious discrimination in stores and restaurants specifically.  Yes, some backwater business's could succeed with ignorant policies like this, but the majority of restaurant owners who tried would be, as Tom Woods of the Mises Institute say's "boycotted and picketed out of existence within ten seconds."

"I once believed we could evolve our way up from Jim Crow, I was wrong: federal intervention was necessary"
This quote you use makes the case for libertarianism!  Jim Crow was LAWS! That's your team, the government.  Those were laws that mandated racial discrimination.  Bill Buckley was no libertarian.

And regarding the ADA, I like what Stossel says about it.  It would be perfect if every business in the land had power ramps and voice activated door handles and escalators in lieu of stairs, but as with candidates, perfect is the enemy of the good.  Which is better, those thing that I just mentioned or the untold jobs lost by the cost of the multitude of mandated insurance policies, the expensive ramps, the ever-glowing exit signs, etc?  I think a lower unemployment rate is more desirable as well as a utilitarian outcome of giving back property rights to the owners of the property.  There will be ramps.  There will be exit signs.  But not everywhere. 

I hope this clarifies some of the points I was trying to make in my previous post

For more on this, see Milton Freidman at 3:08.

The Right to Discriminate

A co-worker the other day asked me about Rand Paul and the "racist" comments he made regarding public/private property.  For those of you who don't know, Rand Paul is running for a senate seat in Kentucky and a week ago he won the republican primary in a landslide.  He is the son of Congressmen Ron Paul (TX), who I have cited in various posts, here, and here.

Immediately after Rand Paul's somewhat surprising victory the other day, the intellectually dishonest media began lambasting him as a racist based on his response during an interview about the civil rights movement.  Basically, he said that he supported the majority of the civil rights legislation, but that the laws concerning private property, ie, resturants, bars, pool halls, etc are unjust.  A business owner should have the right to discriminate if he or she wants to.  As Paul says in the interview, "racism is terrible and always a bad business decision, but the owner the private property should be able to make that decision."

Racism is morally corrupt and ignorant and indeed a poor business decision, but the owner of private property has the right to discriminate if they want to.  Even if it is a "public" place like a cafe, the fact of the matter is the owner of the property has the right to be a fool and discriminate based on race, sex, age, height, the car you drive, and so on and so forth.  Should a there be a law mandating who you let in your home? As soon as we start talking about something like water fountains, public buses and schools, who are all funded with taxpayer dollars and therefore truly public property, then their MUST be laws preventing discrimination.  So Rand Paul is correct on this subject the attacks against him are unfounded.

I only wish Rand could apply these same logical libertarian principals to other subjects, like foreign policy. This is a crucial fork in the intellectual road where he and his father go their own ways.  Ron Paul maintains that foreign military engagements are bad, where his son seems to encourage the ever hawkish "strong national defense," which means at its core that war is good and America needs to be the COP of the world.  He is not the consistent libertarian that I wish he could be, but I certainly maintain that he was correct about a private business owner right to discriminate. 

Check out a clip of the story here and watch Stossel defend this right.

On "Free"ways and Interstates

A recent reader comment regarding air travel and its subsides and true costs got me thinking about the Interstate Highway System.  The 34th president, Dwight D. Eisenhower, championed the creation of a country-wide system of interconnected multi-lane highways for cars and trucks to get around the country with ease and speed in the mid nineteen fifties, at the height of the car culture boom. 

I have traveled across the country a few times and primarily used these highways as a means of travel.  It is slick.  Fast, strait, bizarrely safe, and seemingly efficient.  But this idea of true costs brings up some points I will address here.

First of all, from a property rights perspective, the creation of this system was atrocious.  Quite a bit of private land was essentially stolen from the owners through the use of Eminent Domain. This is where the government decides that your property is worth more to the group than it is to you, whether it be productive farmland or pristine swampland.

Secondly, and most importantly as far as I am concerned, is the fact that we have essentially subsidized the long haul trucking and oil industry with these highways, which are still federally and state funded.  As a result of these "free" highways, it is more economically efficient for businesses to ship goods with tractor trailer trucks instead of trains.  Trains are astronomically more efficient in terms of energy consumption than individual trucks are at moving tons of material over long distances.  So, instead of letting the market figure out the most efficient way to move goods, the government did, and in doing so, has essentially given trillions of dollars to both the trucking industry and the more insidious oil industry.

Of course it is in the favor of "big oil" to have a system that uses a lot more oil, like big rig trucks, than one that does not, like trains.  I think this is just another example of corporatist government interventions into the decisions of the market which have resulted in the hiding of countless "true costs."

Audit the Fed Bill Gutted!

A little over a week ago a version of Ron Paul and Allen Grayson's bill to Audit the Federal Reserve was passed through congress by Sen. Bernie Sanders of VT.  Unfortunately the bill that passed has been heavily watered down from the one that Rep. Paul has worked relentlessly to get passed.

According to Ron Paul, he is very disappointed in Sanders quickly folding under to political pressure.  Sanders and Paul, who are sort of on the opposite ends of the spectrum philosophically, had agreed on this bill and worked together to get the original one passed.  Now, this lame version of the original may only cause more harm than good because it offers a one time Audit of the fed and only regarding the bailout money.  It says nothing of the Fed's dubious secret dealings with foreign banks and governments.  Now people can say, "The Fed has been audited, we found nothing, happy now?"


Again, this goes to show that there is no one in politics who holds a candle to Ron Paul in their ability to resist political pressure.  I have, from time to time, thrown a bone to the once seemingly principled Dennis Kucinich and Bernie Sanders, even though they are socialist geeks, but now after Kucinich folded on health care and Sanders on the Fed bill, I realize there is only one Ron Paul.

GM Follow Up-I was right

As the always suave Nick Gillespie explains in this short video from Reason.com, GM did not pay back their loan for real.  General Motors was given a 50 billion (that's right, 50 BILLION) dollar TARP loan.  It turns out only a mere 6 billion dollars was an actual "loan". The rest was a generous gift from you and me and your grandmothers.  That loan was paid back from an ESCROW account set up for them.  They paid the loan back with money loaned to them from the government.  So next time you you see that ad, raise your clenched fist in disgust!

In Response

Regarding a thoughtful comment to my post Friendly Skies,
Colin,
Thanks for taking a look at this!

I guess I should clarify a little bit and say let the airports be in charge of their own security.

I think you are raising good points in regards to the minutia of air travel and security, but I don't see why a private company couldn't take care of all of these issues far more effectively and efficiently than a Giant central government bureaucracy. 

Having a plane crash is very, very bad for business in the airline industry.  Take away absolutely all subsidies and tax breaks given to the airlines and airports, put them in charge of their own security, and watch it flourish.  It will be more pleasant to fly, and you won't be treated like a criminal every time you board. 

Also, if the US government would stop slaughtering innocent people overseas, I suspect it would help the cause of airline safety a bit. 

Auto Cars

I just saw an ad on the TV set from the president of General Motors. He said that they have paid their loan from the federal government back, with interest, five years ahead of schedule.

This may or may not be true. Lets, for the sake of the conversation, say they did pay that "loan" back to the gov. While GM is in the process of paying back the billions in tax payer dollars, the same federal government who doled out the loan was laying a 16 MILLION dollar fine against Toyota!

Reward the company that has failed miserably at business, and punish the one who has done pretty damn good.

It makes perfect sense to me! That's how all companies should be treated. I hate business that produce a consistent and reliable product. Punish them!!!

Dead Heat?

Tell me what you think of this recent Rassumsun Poll which shows Ron Paul (41%) trailing by one point to Obama (42%) for the two most popular presidential candidates for 2012.  Watch the humble statesman talk about it in this interview.  Its a good one.

Friendly Skies

The other day, while attempting to board a jet plane in Los Angeles, I made the ghastly error of sending an old plastic seltzer bottle containing some tap water through the X-ray machine. There was around a cup of water in the clear plastic bottle. The instant I fed my pack containing this bottle into the rubber krilled X-ray device, I knew had I made a mistake. When I cleared the metal detector obstacle, I was greeted by a massive goon, hiding behind the badge of the Transportation Security Administration, whose logo is some eagle flying at the speed of sound.  He was looking for trouble.  He asks, "Whose bottle is this?"  and I tell him "Its mine, and I'm sorry, I forgot to pour the water out of it before I entered security.  I ask him if I can just dump the cup of tap water in that trash can over there", and he says no.  I ask him, "How bout I drink it and we forget this ever happened ?"  He's lookin' for trouble, don't forget, and he says, "NO!" He then trows it in a recycle bin while looking at me and smiling.  I attempted to retrieve it seconds later, but was thwarted.

My point is this---Do we need the federal government to be in charge of airline safety?  Have they done a good job?  Remember that underwear bomb guy in December?  When was the last time you saw an elderly woman being frisked?  Have you been harassed and treated like a terrorist?    Well, your paying for it, so I hope your happy with it!

LET THE AIRLINE BE IN CHARGE OF ITS OWN SECURITY! 

Defined Principal

This past weekend at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference Ron Paul proved once again why he is so worth defending.  As a friend wrote to me in an email:
                
                    Paul could have easily gone down there into the lions den and simply said what the tea-partiers wanted to hear..."We need to trim domestic spending blah, blah, blah..."and then convieniently not bring up foriegn policy. But instead, he fearlessly marches in there with his scrappy followers and relentlessly attacks republican hypocracy of pretending to believe in free markets while they still support the largest empire in the history of the planet. A politician taylors his speech/ message to the room he is speaking to. Ron Paul is not a politician; he is an educator. Ron Paul has such a rabid following precisely because he never makes political calculations. He's an anti-politician. He speaks the truth as he sees it and lets the chips fall where they may. That is why we love him. It's also why the bad guys hate, fear, and respect him all at the same time.

This clip from the conference shows him at his finest, staring down the neo-con boos, and telling the truth.

In Response

A reader wrote in response to my post The Most Private of Property:
              
          ...how do you decide where to draw the line about which government laws/services are appropriate and which aren't? It seems from your post that you do think that a police force or penal system of some sort is necessary. So there ARE some things that you want to see in place...  So I am curious: how do you decide what types of laws are necessary and what types are not? This is not a facetious question at all, I am really wondering where you draw the line.

This is fantastic question and I have a couple answers for it.

The more conventional libertarian/constitutionalists would like a limited government to make and enforce laws prohibiting the invasion of personal property by another person.  By this I mean it should be against the law (as it is) to hit someone else in the head with a bat for no reason.  Many people interpret the constitution to say that the federal government's one job is to protect the States from foreign invasion, (and for some antiquated reason, run the post office). I tend to agree with these points of view relative to the world that we live in right now.  It is wrong to invade other peoples(or countries) property or steal from them.

For the ideal, albeit somewhat philosophical system for the enforcement of these basic laws I once again lean on the brain of the great anarcho/capitalist Murray N. Rothbard who proposed that private companies compete for protection services through the voluntary participation of consumers.  I think this would provide the most just and fair enforcement of the "rule of law" within a anarcho/capitalist society.  This likely sounds kind of crazy too you.  You might be saying, "you foolish anarchist! there are no laws to enforce!"  If A chooses to  infringe upon B's human rights, by knocking down his door and hitting him till he is unconscious, B has every right to retaliate in kind.  Rothbard says:

           "For, apart from ruling out as unjustified all activities such as murder, homicide, rape, trespass, robbery, burglary, theft, and fraud, the ethics of private property is also incompatible with the existence of a state defined as an agency that possesses a compulsory territorial monopoly of ultimate decision-making (jurisdiction) and/or the right to tax."

I draw the line when private property gets unjustly invaded.  And as I see it the government is playing the role of the aggressor invadeing peoples property through the coercive theft of taxation. 

Russian Bombing

On Monday two young Chechen women detonated bombs they were wearing in a crowded subway station in Moscow.  They were evidently militant separatist's from the state of Chechnya, in the North Caucus's.  Russia's prime minister Putin has vowed that "the terrorists will be destroyed".

In 1999 Vladamir Putin Led a war against these same Chechen separatists in Chechnya in an attempt to overthrow the government which was being ruled by these "rebels".  It would seem that some people from Chechnya are still angry. 

I think this a perfect example of the failures of an aggressive foreign policy. (I know Chechnya is technically in Russia, but they have been fighting for just independence for a long time.)  As I mentioned in one off my post's here, blowback is the unintended consequences of a governments foreign policy, usually borne out in the form of terrorism against the said governments citizens.  And all we hear from the Russian leaders is, "We will hunt them down and kill them!"  Good luck!  Terrorism is extremely difficult to stop when terrorists belief enough in their cause to kill themselves along with innocent people.  You succeed in one thing: the creation of more terrorists.  

Please don't misread what I am saying here!  I am in no way saying that this horrific act against innocent civilians was in anyway justified, I am simply trying to point out the failures of an American style offensive military involvement abroad.  These people are religious nuts jobs and are evil.  But going into Chechnya and killing more innocent people in retaliation is going to do nothing but cause more of these terrorist type attacks.

I wish America's Commander in Chief and his horrible Secretary of State, Hillary Hawk, could learn a lesson from this wretched tragedy in Moscow.

Education

If you haven't seen this yet it is a wonderfully entertaining lesson on monetary policy and Austrian business cycle theory.

The Most Private of Property

As a small 'l' libertarian I am philosophically "pro-choice" in terms of the ever-controversial issue of abortion.  The great Murray N. Rothbard lays it down clearly in this passage from his book, The Ethics of Liberty:
                   
   The proper groundwork for analysis of abortion is in every man’s absolute right of self-ownership. This implies immediately that every woman has the absolute right to her own body, that she has absolute dominion over her body and everything within it. This includes the fetus. Most fetuses are in the mother’s womb because the mother consents to this situation, but the fetus is there by the mother’s freely-granted consent. But should the mother decide that she does not want the fetus there any longer, then the fetus becomes a parasitic “invader” of her person, and the mother has the perfect right to expel this invader from her domain. Abortion should be looked upon, not as “murder” of a living person, but as the expulsion of an unwanted invader from the mother’s body.[2] Any laws restricting or prohibiting abortion are therefore invasions of the rights of mothers.

Many readers of this blog will agree with me on this one topic. I see abortion as an issue for a woman to decide - not for a lawmaker to decide for her. Abortion, because it involves the most private of property, is one of the most fundamental issues of property rights; I wonder, then, why many of the same people who feel that a woman's "right to choose" is protected through property rights do not apply this same principle to other complex matters such as drug use, foreign policy, and health care.

The fascist health care bill that just passed the House is a clear violation of natural human rights. Contained in this bill is law requiring every person in America to purchase from a private company health insurance. (By the way, 16,500 new IRS agents need to be hired to enforce this heinous law.) If I, for whatever reason, choose not to purchase health insurance, I will be fined - and ultimately jailed - by armed thugs. This is wrong for so many reasons, but it is most dubious in terms of my ownership of my own body: being forced, by penalty of jail, to do something to protect myself from harm is the true crime. It is not the job of elected officials to legislate what I do with my body.  Their job is to legislate what other people do with my body!  If someone hits me in the head with a bat because they want my wallet, then it's punishment time.

As I have mentioned in previous posts, laws prohibiting the use of drugs are equally wrong, for the express reason that they allow the government to tell you what you can and cannot due with your most private of property - yourself.  The list goes on and on: prostitution, laws prohibiting the sale of your organs, gambling laws, and America's foreign policy. (Talk about property theft! State-sponsored murder is the most egregious form of property rights infringement.) What's more, all of these unjust infringements are funded by  the theft of your private property - your money - through taxation.

Many see the crime in laws that prohibit a woman's natural right to choose what she does with her reproductive organs - yet refuse to recognize the crimes of a similar nature that are committed against us all on a daily basis, through innumerable laws dictating even the most mundane aspects of our lives. Am I overlooking some obvious explanation for this apparent hypocrisy?

An Austrian Economist on NPR Today!

Tom Woods is on "On Point" today discussing nullification/secession/federalism with Tom Ashbrook.  He is fantastic (Woods) and I am excited that he is being given this platform on NPR.  Its on in VT right now.  Check it out on a podcast if you can't hear it live.

Taxman

April 15th draws near.  Everyone knows that this is the day that the Income Tax is due.  But contrary to popular belief, this is not the only tax day that Americans are subject to.

When taxes are levied on businesses, the costs are inevitably passed along to consumers - that's us!  Like it or not, we all fit into the category of consumers. (That is, unless you are living in a hut you built from the trees you cut with the ax you forged; but you wouldn't be reading this because you wouldn't have the Internet or a computer.) If I were to purchase a new tee shirt, a percentage of the cost would go toward paying a tax.  Yes, a small percentage in this one instance, but I don't only buy one tee shirt.  I also buy milk, socks, brakes for my car, paint, fishing poles, etc, etc. We are all paying taxes on all of these things.  It adds up.  More of the money I make, taken.

Now enter the most insidious and sneaky off all taxes: the inflation tax.  Say you have 10,000 dollars in a savings account, in cash.  Every time the Federal Reserve prints more money to pay off debts, to "stimulate" the economy, or to pay for the endless wars America is engaged in, that ten thousand dollars becomes worth a little less.  And a lot of money is printed.  When the supply of money increases, your savings looses value.  This is inflation.  It is an artificial function of an economy brought on by the dubious practice of creating money out of thin air by printing it. The economy is based on this fiat currency.  And right now the printing presses are working hard!  If our economy was tied to a hard currency (gold, silver), inflation would not be the issue that plagues our economy today.  I will spend more time on this topic in a future post.

About now you are saying, "Of course the right wing monster hates taxes!  He wants to see old people pushed to the streets and roads torn up!"   I ask-where are my hard earned dollars actually going?  Do you you know what a "strong national defense" costs?  Medicare fraud is a full time job for countless thieves.  Is the "War on Drugs" funding itself?  NASA!  An incredibly inefficient space boondoggle if ever there was one.  The fact that one cent that belongs to you pays for the illegal murder of some foreign person should outrage you like it does me.

So, even if you choose to be "scofflaw" and not pay the unconstitutional income tax, you are being taxed all the time nonetheless.  What are you going to do about it?

Skeptical Libertarianism

If you can only watch a couple minutes of this, check out 1:52 through 3:40. The whole thing is worth a watch. This guy is almost right on. He is a little too hawkish for my likes, but what do I know?

In Response

A reader commented on a reply post of mine:
"truly free markets" are no more possible than that omnipotent geek perched on a mountain top.

Truly free markets are the ideal as far as I am concerned, but I also understand that they are few and far between.  I think what I am trying to get at is that market forces are always at work, in spite of the many barriers to their smooth operation.(taxes, regulations, codes, laws, tariffs, etc.)

I presently work as a cook at a busy restaurant.  Every single day, the owner or kitchen manager is making countless decisions on how to most efficiently run the business.  If a flat of strawberries is up to $56, then they have to decide to go without them for a couple days and hope the price drops back to the $30s, or take the hit because they think the "value added" to the customers is worth the higher cost.  And that is just one example of the hundreds of ingredients, products, spices, meats that they have to make decisions on every day.  

On top of that, it takes constant innovation to the menu and changes to the special's board to keep customers coming back day after day, week after week.  It is an astonishing amount of work and every decision made is dictated by profit and loss.  So, although this market is not "truly free",  it is still very susceptible to market forces.  I have found this to be the case with most business's in the private sector. 

Stossel Rides a Bike

I think this is a good follow up to the last post.  I find a lot of this very counter-intuitive, like the issue addressed here, bicycle helmet laws.

Of Rats and Mongoose

Late in the  19th century, the sugarcane farmers of Maui, Hawaii had a rat problem.  Their solution to this problem was to introduce the Indian Mongoose, a small, weasel-like little critter renowned for its rodent-killing prowess.

The mongoose took to the climate of Hawaii and spread like wildfire around six of the eight Hawaiian islands.  There were several unforeseen problems with this plan: the nocturnal rat conducts most of its business at night, while the mongoose is a diurnal hunter, feeding almost exclusively during the day.  The mongoose therefore did not have the desired effect on the rat population.  It did, however, do a number on the native bird and insect species.  This is an example of the phenomenon of unintended consequences.

Government intervention in both markets and foreign affairs nearly always result in unintended consequences.

Think of the 9/11 terror attacks.  The United States' perpetual military involvement in the Middle East for the last half-century resulted in the murder of 3,000 innocent American civilians.

Though the intention of minimum wage laws was a benevolent one, countless domestic jobs have been lost to cheap labor overseas.  Minimum wage laws have also prevented the employment of workers on the margins by making it much harder to pay market wages to disabled or young, under-experienced workers.

In this essay commemorating Ludwig Von Mises's 90th birthday, my personal favorite Austrian Economist, Murray N. Rothbard, draws a nice parallel between the invasive spread of species and government:

A notable feature of Mises's analysis of "interventionism" — of government intervention in the economy — is that it is fundamentally what could now be called "ecological"; for it shows that an act of intervention generates unintended consequences and difficulties, which then present the government with an alternative: either more intervention to "solve" these problems, or repeal of the whole interventionist structure.

In short, Mises shows that the market economy is a finely constructed, interrelated web; and coercive intervention at various points of the structure will create unforeseen troubles elsewhere. The logic of intervention, then, is cumulative; and so a mixed economy is unstable — always tending either toward full-scale socialism or back to a free-market economy. The American farm-price support program, as well as the New York City rent-control program, are almost textbook cases of the consequences and pitfalls of intervention.

The cane toad epidemic in Australia is still another example of counter-productive tinkering. Here is a great (and kind of comical) article that chronicles the battle against this invasive species.   

 Biological, military, and economic intervention inevitably results in unforeseen and unintended consequences.  The intricacies of our world make predicting outcomes based on our actions all but impossible. This leads to and ever-expanding paradox in which "solutions" invariably need more "solutions" and ultimately bleed out a natural system or interventionist government.

Pirates and Emperors

Who do you prefer?

Drug War

The other day I was listening to National Public Radio talk about the horrible situation along the northern Mexico border with the U.S.  The story was about the horrendous violence associated with the battles between law enforcement and powerful drug cartels, and all the thousands of lives that have been lost, both innocent and not.  

The interviewer posed questions to members of the law enforcement community as well as some of the civilians who have been affected by this drug war.  When it came to possible solutions, everyone was scratching their head.  They said perhaps more police; maybe the army can get involved; more "help" from the U.S. (like we haven't "helped" enough).

There was no mention of what I see as the obvious solution: legalize absolutely all drugs.
Where are the cartels getting their income from?  The highly profitable trafficking of drugs and other contra-band into the U.S.  Why is there so much money in this?  Its is very simple economics.  There is an incredibly high demand for drugs here in America, as well as everywhere else in the world.  The drugs that are illegal are incredibly expensive due to this very high demand for them and the laws that make them illegal to posses.  It is obvious that there is a market for drugs, and to make it a criminal offense to purchase them makes them dangerous for more than just the user.  There are a couple reasons this is so.

First, it is puerile to think that drug use can be stopped with legislation.  Billions of dollars and countless lives have been spent on this idiotic experiment that is the "war on drugs".  Humans have always and will always ingest substances to alter their state of consciousness.  This is a fact.

Secondly, when something is made illegal that there is a high demand for, the price inevitably rises, as well as the danger to the consumer.  Think alcohol during Prohibition, prostitution, gambling, and drugs.  When the price of something that someone "needs" to function goes up, they become desperate and will do anything to get their fix.  A good example of this is cancer patients homes being broken into by ordinary people gripped by addiction needing some Oxycontin (a heroin substitute).  Peoples homes are being robbed, cars broken into, purses and wallets stolen, to fund the high cost addiction.

There are many dubious reasons that drugs remain illegal, so who benefits from these laws?  During Prohibition one of the strongest supporters of the prohibition was Al Capone, the famous gangster.  He made truckloads of money smuggling booze to America and meeting the demand of thirsty consumers.  Look at the prisons in the U.S.  How many citizens are in prison for non-violent drug crimes?  Does it cost taxpayers a lot of hard earned money to keep them there?  How about the countless "drug squads" in every municipality around this country.

Let me stress right now that I am not advocating drug use.  I think that drug addiction is horrific and should be treated as medical issue and not a legal one.  Drugs are bad to do.  There should be real drug education starting in kindergarten.

Imagine that all drugs are legal.  A shot of heroin cost's $2.00 at Rite Aid, behind the counter next to the pipe tobacco and small bottles of booze.  It is a lot easier to scrounge up 2 dollars than it is 100 dollars, right?  Sure, I suspect that you would see an increase in drug use at first.  But look at it this way: there would be a massive decrease in crime.  Massive!  Now the only people being effected by drug use are the users and their families.  Not everyone in society.  I'll stress again, drugs are not good.  

I also believe that a person should be able to do whatever they want to their own body, no matter what possible harm that their actions could result in to themselves.  From using drugs to riding a motorcycle with out a helmet, both of which, I personally think are stupid to do.  I'll talk about the helmet thing later on.

There is big money at stake on both sides of this War on Drugs and it is us left to pay for it in our blood and toil through taxation.  END THIS WAR!!!

This Just In!

This is a gripping piece of journalism.

This makes me so thankful for the internet.  It goes to show how incredibly uncreative and cookie cutter network news programs are.  Think inside the specific outline of the box please!

A boring old Tea Party

There is a movement afoot within the republican party that claims to be for constitutionally limited government, fiscal responsibility, and free markets.  They call themselves the "Tea Party" and their de facto leaders are the Neo-Conservatives, Sarah Palin and Glen Beck.  They have picked up a good head of steam and are all the buzz around the media.  I mean, if I'm writing about it, its got to be news.

There are a few issues that I have with all of this.  The term Tea Party has been hijacked by this movement from the more libertarian Ron Paul Revolution campaign for president back in 07' 08'.  "We" held a tea party money bomb where we raised over 6 million dollars for him in in one day.  Evidently, this new movement wants in on the action.


The trouble with this movement is that it seems to be at odds with is very core principals.  It is very easy to claim that you demand limited government and fiscal conservatism, but if in the next breath you espouse the need for "a strong national defense" (read, bombing people with dark skin that don't like our God), then you are just fooling yourself and evidently everyone who is listening.  Civil liberties?  Just so long as they don't interfere with our national defense, it shouldn't be a problem.  Wire tapping?  Airport screening?   Its a joke to watch Sarah Palin reading from her little crib notes on her hand.  She has no idea what the people she is talking to want, but whatever she says is gospel.  Arghh...

It's just frustrating because a lot of what I have been reading and talking about (small government, true free markets, etc.) have been comendeered by this misguided "movement", and I often find myself lumped in with them when I don't necessarily want to be.


There is a pretty good article on the Huffington Post about this.
Also, Rachel Maddow had Ron Paul on her show to talk about it the other night.  Pretty good stuff.

Illustration

This clever cartoon is a simple and great illustration of the term blowback, which I mentioned in an earlier post.

Spontaneous Order

In this clip from one of John Stossel's 20/20 specials, he touches on the union between the spontaneous order constantly on display in the natural world, and the bottom up order of human action and decision making.

I think a timely example of this is when the wave happens at a giant sporting event: 30,000 unrelated strangers act in near perfect unison to send a wave of flailing arms curling around the stadium.  This occurs out of the blue, started by just a few people.

The town I live in has countless four way intersections with stop signs on all four corners.  Even with heavy traffic, cars tend to breeze through, acting in their own self interest when they let the person who arrived a split second before them go.  Though the temptation is to speed on as fast as possible, most motorists will do everything they can to avoid a costly and dangerous accident, and waiting that extra second will often make this possible for them.  

Also, there is a really sweet rope swing at 3:03 in the video.

Dinner with Ron Paul

About a month ago, I was given the opportunity of my life. I was invited to New York City to be a guest at a dinner with Ron Paul, a republican congressman from Texas and a former presidential candidate. Mr. Paul is a longtime student of the Austrian School of Economics, and he was the most anti-war candidate on either side of the fence in the ’08 election. I independently worked on his presidential campaign—calling voters around caucus time, going door to door, collecting signatures, and even spray painting my old pickup truck with his website.


It was that now-broken-down pickup truck that caught the attention of Seth Lipsky of the New York Sun as he walked past my home in Maine. We became friends and on several occasions have met for breakfast in his home to discuss a wide array of markets-based topics - from the gold standard to the Federal Reserve.


In the middle of November of '09, Seth gave me a call to ask me what I was doing for dinner on December 14^th; he had invited Ron Paul to New York to talk about HR 1207 and wanted me to be there. I accepted, and a month later, I found myself in a room surrounded by a stellar cast of journalists gathered to hear Dr. Paul (he is an O.B.G.Y.N) speak. Among them were James Grant of Grant’s Interest Rate Observer; Paul Gigot and Mary O’Grady of the Wall Street Journal, along with their former editor there, George Melloan; Adam Brodsky of the New York Post; Ira Stoll of thefutureofcapitalism.com; and John Stossel and Judge Andrew Napalitano of Fox News. John Stossel was one of the first to get me interested in libertarianism from his days on ABC's 20/20 and I read and watch Judge Napalitano nearly every day. The Senior Vice President of the Campaign for Liberty, Jesse Benton was accompanying Dr. Paul.

Thesis of sorts

My name is Gardner Waldeier and I am a jack of all trades from Maine. My purpose for setting up this blog is to look at how various topics - political, economic, ecological, etc. - relate the to libertarian/anarcho-capitalist Austrian School of Economics that I find so appealing.
Personal liberty, private property rights, and a non-interventionist foreign policy are the foundations of this school of economic thought; through this blog, my hope is to get more and more people interested in questioning their beliefs on these sometimes radical subjects.

My obsession with wild animals, nature, evolution and invasive species in particular when I was younger, led me to notice the parallels between the spontaneous order that takes place in nature and the way free markets work.

Thanks for reading. I hope to keep you engaged and strongly encourage any and all comments.
Gardner