Milton Friedman

"Utilitarians, with their devotion
to expediency, almost inevitably oppose any sort of upsetting
or radical change. There have been no utilitarian revolutionaries.
Hence, utilitarians are never immediate abolitionists.
The abolitionist is such because he wishes to eliminate wrong
and injustice as rapidly as possible. In choosing this goal,
there is no room for cool, ad hoc weighing of cost and benefit.
Hence, the classical liberal utilitarians abandoned radicalism
and became mere gradualist reformers. But in becoming
reformers, they also put themselves inevitably into the position
of advisers and efficiency experts to the State. In other
words, they inevitably came to abandon libertarian principle
as well as a principled libertarian strategy. The utilitarians
wound up as apologists for the existing order, for the status
quo, and hence were all too open to the charge by socialists
and progressive corporatists that they were mere narrowminded
and conservative opponents of any and all change.
Thus, starting as radicals and revolutionaries, as the polar
opposites of conservatives, the classical liberals wound up as
the image of the thing they had fought."

 Murray Rothbard For a New Liberty

Well if this doesn't describe the guy that implemented the income tax withholding, I don't know what does...

Two Comments to Ponder This Weekend

1. Intellectual Dark Web - - Am I the only one that is not completely either in awe or outraged by "the intellectual dark web"?  I guess I tend to agree with them more than I disagree with them, but I really true find them to be a bunch of nice people discussing milk toast ideas.  None of them say anything that is in the least bit extreme.  I don't mean this to be a negative review of them.  I enjoy them.  All of them.  I am just saying it's sort of embarrassing for our society that these are the outrageous guys saying the things you can't say.

2. People keep calling Trump the most unpredictable president - - Am I the only one that completely disagrees with this.  He is a completely normal president.  He does illegal stuff, he kills innocent people, he has a horrible moral compass, he speaks with bluster, he takes away liberty of the people, he plays to his base, he is divisive, he believes he can decide what foreign countries do.  These are all common things of a president.  Essentially, as Scott Horton puts it, he does all the bad things he promised and doesn't do the good things he promised.  MAINSTREAM.

The Risk/Reward Tradeoff of Technology

One of the early concepts in finance is for an investor to put his money in something more of higher risk, he needs to be compensated with a higher expected return.  For example, US treasuries are assumed to be roughly risk free (an increasingly farcical phenomenon) and therefore yield on small returns.  Investments in Silicon Valley startups are highly risky and as a result the expected valley of payoff from an investment in a startup must be enormous. 

This relationship strikes me as similar to the relationship we individuals hold with respect to our freedom.  While the benefits of technology have made our freedom immensely easier, more pleasurable and more relaxing, these exact same technologies present much greater a risk to our freedom.  Cellphones have made staying in contact with family members in other states and countries easier, it has also provided an avenue for an increasingly tyrannical government to snoop on everything we say and do.  While self-driving cars present a way to dramatically reduce the number of traffic fatalities, they also provide another avenue for the CIA to irreparable harm.  Credit cards and apple pay provide excellent ways to pay for goods and services without using dirty money that is easy to lose but also provides another way for the powers that be to surveil and monitor us and everything we do.

This paradox of technology presenting a more rewarding life but also a life of more risk is a reminder to us all to stay vigilant with regard to those who can wield the power of these tools against us.  It is more important now than it ever has been that we remove the state from the mechanisms of control.  Should we be successful, the life we all can have will be immensely rewarding. 

Cheers to taking all the power of the state away and our increasing prosperity.

Federal Reserve Notes are Risk Free?

In finance, one of the earlier ideas you will learn is the idea of a risk free rate of return.  This is the amount of return you can expect on an investment by making that investment in a vehicle that has 0% risk of default.  You will get the return for sure, every single time - hence, risk free.

The risk free rate used in finance models is the return on long term government bonds.  Often, US federal reserve notes are the returns used, though in other countries, practitioners sometimes use foreign government bond returns.

This is at odds with the facts.

First, through printing money, some governments may continue to make payments on debt even when they don't have the money to do so.  This may result in the nominal return being as advertised but the real return by definition will be lower due to the inflation eating away at some returns. Obviously, financieers take inflation into account these days but government debt being risk free is still at odds with the facts for the following reason...

Governments default on debt all the time!  Essentially every government that has ever existed has defaulted on its debt at some point.  Sure, they can go centuries without defaulting, but eventually they do and will default.  This makes them no longer risk free.

I have yet to see a strong push back on this idea but believe it to be worthwhile to consider should you work in finance and need to understand what type of rate is truly risk free.

This is yet another example of people giving a pass to the government.  They can borrow more than they otherwise would be able to at a lower rate than they would otherwise get.  They can steal money when average citizens can't.  They can tell you what you can and can't do, eat or consume when average citizens can't. 

This is part and parcel of the larger problem of average people being lulled to sleep and giving a pass to the government.  We should always and everywhere people critical and skeptical of the government and the risk free rate is just another example.

Privatize the VA

Former Secretary of Veteran Affairs David Shulkin was recently fired from his post.  Supposedly Shulkin was fired due to scandals as well as his opposition to the privatization of the VA. 

Mr. Shulkin wrote an op-ed in the NY times recently where he said “I believe strongly in the mission of the Department of Veternas Affairs, and nothing about my political experience in Washington could ever change that.  I also believe that maintaining a strong VA is an essential piece of the puzzle that is the United States’ national security system: We can only expect our sons and daughters to risk their lives and fight for our freedom if we can keep our promise to care for them when they return home broken, injured or traumatized.  There is no excuse for not holding up our end of the bargain.”

What a load of bunk!

This is an embarrassment that a man of that high office could have such limited knowledge.  Later in the piece Shulkin states “As many of you know, I am a physician, not a politician.”  No kidding! Mr. Shulkin has immense more knowledge than me in medicine but clearly knows nothing of economics, politics or even national defense.  Good riddance, David.

Shulkin states a VA is an essential piece of the national security of the US.  Perhaps if we stop sending young and full of life young men to foreign countries where they can’t tell the difference between civilian and enemy where they end up taking innocent lives for some unknown end goal we may have slightly less need for medical services back home. 

Shulkin states that we can only expect our sons and daughters to risk lives when we promise to care for them when they return home.  Tell this to those who were conscripted into fighting in Vietnam.  They were forced to fight regardless of the care situation back home.

Shulkin implies that by privatizing the VA we would fail to provide care for veterans when they return home.  Does Shulkin have the slightest idea how either markets or charity works? 

When Mr. Shulkin provided care in his physician practice, did he only do so because the government forced him to?  Or did he maybe provide care because he made a living from providing value to his patients and he felt fulfilled in aiding his patients to recovery?

In his opposition to the privatization of the VA, Mr. Shulkin embodies some of the worst and most disheartening ignorance in politics.

Does Mr. Shulkin realize that veterans would love to choose regular hospitals for access to care because the VA is slow, ineffective and is constantly on the defensive from latest scandals. 

Privitizing the VA is:

1.       The most moral thing to do

2.       Irrelevant for national security (though we could be more secure by not starting wars all over the world)

3.       An easy way to save the government money

4.       The best way to ensure veterans actually get high quality healthcare back home when in need.

Mr. Shulkin ought to be ashamed of himself. 

I don’t have much hope for Trump actually privatizing the VA but he deserves credit for floating the idea and should be urged at every moment to follow through.  I will be doing my best to convince him!

The Voluntarist Messaging Problem

Why do we voluntarists struggle to convince people of the fruits of our vision?  Why do people look at us crazy when we say we don’t need a government to do anything?  Is it because kids have been indoctrinated in government schools for generations?  Perhaps, but I don’t think this is the majority or even a large minority of the cause. 

I think it is Americans laziness and complacency.  It is easier and more comfortable to rely on the government’s coercive taxing ability to fund the roads, for example.  Never mind the immorality of this theft, it’s just easier and it works relatively fine so why bother. 

This could properly called complacency. 

When people start to really think about it, they come up with a few things they need the government to do.  National defense, courts and roads are three common ones.  I grant, these are somewhat trickier than welfare, healthcare for senior citizens, and funding for the national endowment for the arts, but the same question remains: Do we really need a government to do this?

Because we have these items (ie. Funding for the NEA, Medicare, food stamps) as low hanging fruit, people do not look beyond to the proper question.  People argue all day and night about the size of government but the proper question is really government or no government. 

We are complacent arguing about how much we should tax, should we spend more or less on the military or health care for senior citizens etc..  This is a combination of we have easier problems to answer and people are too complacent to think about anything but the easy problems.  Unfortunately, while I support any and all efforts to reduce the size and scope of government, this takes our eyes off the ball.  We need to be fighting every day about if we need government.  Discussing the size of government cedes ground in the sense of implicitly affirming the need for government.

Because people tend to take the easiest possible answer to all problems, government is often used as an easy solution.  We would benefit by always encouraging people to think critically about the need for government at all. 

My opinion is we don’t need a war mongering military and courts that throw people in jail for crimes in which nobody has been harmed.  This is the debate we should be having rather than the size of the military or its accompanying policies. 

As voluntarists, the evidence and not to mention morality are always on our side.  We should use that as a calling card to constantly fight the implicit assumption of the need for government.  We need to change the messaging to fighting the idea of government rather than which policies or what size of government we want. In doing so, we may finally gain back some ground in public opinion.

Who Will Build the Roads

When people ask, ‘who will build the roads?’ my usual response is, ‘the same people that currently build them, it’ll just be financed differently.’  Then I go on to give a few quick ideas. ‘Tolls are an obvious choice but so are trade associations that want you to visit malls and stores.  Perhaps non-profit organizations pop up to facilitate the easier movement of people and build the roads?  Maybe we will all start riding on drones or using other technology. Maybe unions or employee associations charge fees or payroll deductions from your paycheck in order to maintain the roads needed to access your job?  Point is, I don’t know the solution, I do know a solution exists and would become a reality.  What won't happen is the government stops funding the roads and then the world descends into chaos, no business gets done and people live solitary lives and never leave their home other than maybe walking to a neighbors.  This, I am confident, would not happen. 

Self Regulation Should be a Higher Value

Most libertarians are focusing on the recent developments on North Korea and the seeming positive developments in regards to diplomatic relations with the South and the US (maybe).  I fully support this but have nothing substantive to add. 

Another topic I have been thinking about recently however is, protestors are demanding the likes of Apple and Facebook make their products and services less enjoyable/provide less value.  These protestors claim that Apple holds them captive or Facebook is too addictive and hurting social cohesion.  I don’t disagree with this view but I don’t see this as a reason we need to protest. 

On the one hand, whatever the consumer wants, the consumer gets.  (For the record, I am 100% against the government forcing in anyway any company to provide any type of service or product.) If the consumer realizes he doesn’t have the self-control to cut off Facebook or put down the phone, perhaps it is rational to demand products and services from the private market that help them regain control of their lives.  On the other, this seems to be a very dis-empowering and “I can’t control anything” attitude that hurts society generally and more important the specific individuals involved. 

It seems to me, that as libertarians, we promote the view that you can take care of yourself.  You don’t need a nanny state to tell you what you can and can’t do or where you can and can’t go.  On the other hand, in a totally free society plenty of self-regulation and private regulation agencies and/or companies would exist. 

So how should we view this?

I don’t claim to have the answer but my gut is telling me this is something we should encourage people to regulate internally.  People will need to be able to regulate themselves in a totally voluntary society so I would think this should be a view we should encourage and promote.

I see this argument overlapping with a similar idea in the gun regulation debate.  The idea being, you can’t regulate a civilized society.  True, the private market would do a better job than the government but a truly civil and voluntary society likely requires significant self-regulation.

I am not advocating any type of coercion or force but I do think this is the type of discussion that might prove fruitful in developing the values that might ultimately get us to a voluntary society.  I would be grateful to hear more thoughts on this topic.

Disingenuous or Unhinged - A Pessimistic View of the Future of Facts

I listen to a lot of podcasts.  I find them to be informative and diverse.  I have the flexibility of listening at work, on my commute, while working out etc.. I get a wide variety of information from this medium.  I have a steady supply of libertarian podcasts (EVC, Tom Woods, Part of the Problem, Jason Stapleton and more) but I also listen to Glenn Beck, Joe Rogan, Jocko Willink, Upfirst from NPR, Ezra Klein, and Preet Bharara.

One thing you get very good at in listening to this many diverse opinions is the framing each side makes.  Sometimes this is conscious and sometimes it is not, but rather a function of world view, input information (meaning the stories and articles this person has consumed), or laziness.  

The latter type, typically, does not bother me so much.  Obviously, if you are trying to persuade someone of your view, you use the most persuasive language possible.  The former type, does bug me.  I find it disingenuous and manipulative.  

One such example came from a recent Stay Tuned with Preet episode.  I, obviously, think Preet Bharara is a fool.  He worked for the government, he doesn't understand how the market actually works, and he enforces laws that punish victimless crimes.  Clearly, he isn't my cup of tea.  During the episode, he claimed that the recent Mueller indictment of 13 Russians is clear evidence that Mueller being appointed as special counsel is justified.  

I DO NOT UNDERSTAND THIS.

Last I checked, Mueller was appointed to see if Trump colluded with Russia and now finding out that some Russians bought Facebook ads and tried to hack the elections means the counsel is justified?  I think plain as day, Mr. Bharara is very mistaken. 

The questions is this: Is Mr. Bharara lying and manipulating his listeners by saying this or is he honestly losing his ability to think critically and skeptically at reason and evidence?  

I do not know the answer to this.  I tend to think he most likely made an honest mistake.  However, this one really bugged me.  Perhaps it is because I see thousands of reasons to be critical of Trump (dropping more bombs in one year than Obama, the budget, cracking down on weed, banning bump stocks etc...) but I found this statement to be particularly irritating.  It is a clear example of moving the goal posts. 

Mr. Bharara is relatively less unhinged than most people as far left (politically) as he is, but if someone that appears to be as thoughtful as Preet Bharara is still either lying intentionally or unable to see that his logic (or lack thereof) is completely inconsistent I do not see much hope in people agreeing on facts.

Putin's Plan for American pt 2

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/pentagon-looks-to-adjust-missile-defense-policy-to-include-threats-from-russia-china/2018/03/01/2358ae22-1be5-11e8-8a2c-1a6665f59e95_story.html?utm_term=.756f1e27f8be

It took roughly 24 hours for panic to spread through the newspapers and talk radio all over America. The Pentagon is already using this propaganda as a reason for "expanded U.S. missile defense policy that would address certain threats from Russia and China, departing from a previous strategy that focused nearly exclusively on rogue nations such as North Korea and Iran."

Putin's plan appears to be moving even faster than he could have predicted with the war hungry elites in Washington.

Putin's Plan for America

Step 1 – Claim nuclear bomb and rockets that can reach everywhere on earth and can avoid anti-missile technology

Step 2 – Wait for US mainstream media to spread the story as well as fear and terror

Step 3 – Wait for the Pentagon to request further military budget increases to defend the great USA from the evil Russia

Step 4 – US increases budget from ~$1 trillion/year to $2 trillion/year or more

Step 5 – US debt increases

Step 6 – Lenders to the US money printing machine realize we have 0% chance of paying any of this back

Step 7 – US defaults

Step 8 – Turmoil results and the mighty US crumbles

BTW – Russia has been upping its Gold Reserves for the pending doom that will happen.  This theory doesn’t seem outrageous to me.  It’s really no different than the US tricking the Soviet Union into fighting in Afghanistan.

While it’s been said Afghanistan is the place where empires go to die – I believe more accurately, it’s the debt incurred fighting in Afghanistan (and pretty much everywhere else) that leads empires to die.

Perhaps we should just ignore the non-threat from a country that is not doing well economically and knows full well that any attack on the US would lead to complete destruction of its own country.  We need not worry.

Inconsistent Conservative Interventionists

With the recent news about North Korea and South Korea uniting for the olympics and perhaps further diplomatic discussions, I am reminded of the (numerous) inconsistencies of the supposedly conservative, free-market neocons.  

Here is one in particular:

These folks often believe in the market rather than a central planner and at the same time believe the communist government of North Korea is an existential threat to the US.  

Might I suggest that if you believe in the market, by definition, you do not believe a central planner has the ability to successfully run an economy and provide for the wants and needs of the citizens and its citizens cannot provide the needs of the government (i.e. weapons). 

If you do not think the central planner can run an economy effectively, you do not think economic goods can be made abundant they way they will be if entrepreneurs have the motive of profits and the freedom to act.  

If you do not think economic goods can be made abundant, you do not believe nuclear bombs and the technology to deliver them precisely can be made in abundance and non defective.

If you don't think all the components to making a delivering a nuclear bomb are easy to manufacture and put together to effectively present a threat to other countries across the globe you do not think N Korea is an existential threat.  

If North Korea is not an existential threat to the United States, we have no business running war drills on the DMZ and plotting to assassinate their leaders.

Note, I am not claiming they cannot make a few nuclear bombs and use them effectively to some range, I am saying that they cannot possibly be an existential threat due to the nature of their economy and the relative free market nature of the United States.  If you really do believe in the market, you must be against intervention in North Korea.

Republicans and Democrats Collude with Each Other

Title and Subheader of the top article in Washington Post today:

"Senate leaders see two-year budget deal within their grasp - The deal would include a boost in defense spending that the president has demanded alongside an increase in domestic programs championed by Democrats."

Well that pretty much figures - when in doubt lets agree to spend more on everything.

Yikes!

https://blog.feedspot.com/economics_blogs/

A poll showing top economics blogs.  Don't know how or why the rankings are this way but I see Krugman is #1 - this ought to be a crime and Brookings/Ben Bernanke are top 10.  These two men have hurt more people than just about anyone else in history.  That is not the slightest bit of an exaggeration, unfortunately.

Foolish Statists

Most of my antics on here are more tailored toward the absolute hypocrisy of the left.  They are destroying everything and everyone and deserve every bit of criticism possible.

This post, however, will turn towards criticizing the right, constitutional conservatives small government libertarians etc...

Why would anyone be surprised that when the government investigates itself we the people do not hear the truth, insiders are rigging the investigation, and the deep state is never held accountable.  This is not a flaw of the people (though they are all evil people) this is a flaw of the system.  It is not possible to have a small government because small government begets bigger government always and everywhere.  And the bigger the government the more corruption.  More corruptions yields more investigation of the government by the government which begets more bigger government.

I say no government - everything must be voluntary.

Capitalism Promotes Environmentalism

https://mises.org/wire/real-relationship-between-capitalism-and-environment

The true test of belief in the market is private defense and environmentalism.  When you truly understand how progress occurs you understand that capitalism always builds the wealth and the environment always gets cleaner the wealthier we are.  The very worst thing we could do for the environment is purposefully make us poorer by limiting use of fossil fuels, fining and taxing businesses and more. Regulations do not make the environment cleaner just as laws didn't get rid of child labor.  Both are reduced (and from my view are positive developments) from increased wealth.


It's high time to get rid of all regulations.  Complete free markets are the way to prosperity now and forever.

Crimes Must Have Victims or They Aren't Crimes

http://blog.austrolibertarian.com/?p=8373

This post is short so reposting.  I wholeheartedly agree.

"Crimes are those actions which have as their victims actual individual human beings. There is no abstract “crime against society” as the Progressives want you to think; nor is there a “crime against the state” as fascists want you to think. Rather, a crime is something which actually aggresses the person or property of one’s neighbor.

In this way, actual justice has to do with crimes and there is no such thing as “social justice,” much to the disdain of the socialist or liberal Christian. Any crime which aggresses hundreds of people is a “crime against many individuals,” not a “social crime.” Society has no rights, for society is not a thing in itself. We must speak in terms of the individual, lest collectivism creep in unannounced."

An Implicit Concession

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-01-04/pyongyang-scores-major-victory-after-us-south-korea-agree-not-hold-military-drills

Washington will not hold military drills near North Korea during the Olympics.  It seems we could build on this.  N Korea wants to talk to S Korea, the US isn't running military drills.  Lets keep the escalation going in this direction.  US leave N Korea alone, N Korea let your people live.  Viola.

Liberty & Peace in 2018

https://www.fff.org/2018/01/02/new-years-freedom-resolution/

An excellent New Year’s reconviction from Jacob Hornberger.  We need to start from the basics.  What does it mean to be free and what is the role of government in a free society?

I agree with Hornberger’s thoughts in the article that a free society cannot have welfare or warfare (military welfare) programs.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/north-korea-part-ii/

War makes people money.  Until the American people wise up to this the US will be in constant war and brinksmanship all over the globe.

http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2018/january/01/despite-setbacks-liberty-will-prevail-in-2018/

Ron Paul’s hopeful message for liberty in 2018. 

https://fee.org/articles/i-may-be-a-radical-but-im-definitely-not-a-utopian/

I am often accused of being radical.  That is fine - it is part of my temperament.  I do not agree with the accusations but that doesn’t matter.  The main message to take away is I am against violence, if this makes me radical then so be it.  I wish we had more radicals.