Politics, Society etc.

[alvarezbassist17]

But answer my question, biznatch.  Have you heard of Peter Schiff?

Yeah I think I was actually introduced to him through you when you told me to watch "freedom watch" I havn't read anything of his, just heard him talk.  But I remember really enjoying what he had to say.  He is a very intelligent man.  You say he is running for the senate?

Yeah, he's running for that slob Chris Dodd's seat against Connecticut's Attorney General.  But the real story is the primary, he's running against a really establishment, neocon guy and Vince McMahon's wife, who has pretty much bought the election so far, so it's been really interesting to watch.  Schiff is the shit though, he has a video blog on youtube called the schiff report that you might want to check out; I know you're pretty well vested in economics, but he talks about everything from a financial perspective, which I really get into.

ok read it. cool story, bro!

no now srsly:

1.) what exactly do you want me to learn from this? (i should probablly read the link you provided but i havent that much time right now)

2.) when the first reaction this crowd has is a reflection of the economic side of a crime while not thinking that the act itself (not just the outcome) was an unmoral act, that is not a moral philosophy i would share. similar examples can be found everywhere in the economics where companies provide nice products, but for a very high price or with unmorally means (like having children to do all the work etc.)

i just want to make clear to understand your analogy correctly

I do get that you were being sarcastic, and so was I to a degree, but the main thing that I was trying to get across is that while Germany (although I highly doubt they're footing any of the bill in this case) may have been able to afford those extra 6 days, and they may have provided people with jobs, no one will ever know the jobs that may have been created had the resources not been "wasted" on a longer hospital stay than was necessary.  I think you probably get that, but it's definitely one of the more widespread economic fallacies out there.

I'm not really getting your point about the crowd discussing the morality of it, I mean it's meant to be a short economics book, so chances are he was just trying to keep the discussion as simple as possible.  And you really are out to lunch with that other analogy with child labor.  Nobody wants their kids to work.  Here's a little thought experiment for you: do you think that back when our society was completely devoid of all technology and we were all living on farms, any government rules or re-distributions would have made it so children didn't have to work on the family farm or what have you?  That's what a third-world country is, a country that is so barren of devices to ease labor and increase production, that in order for the family to command the resources it needs to feed and sustain itself, the children are obligated to work or starve.  In these cases, no amount of child labor laws or food redistribution will actually help these countries BE ABLE to do away with child labor.  The economies themselves must become capital-intensive enough in order for the parents of a family to be able to sustain a whole family on just their own labor.  I'm sorry if this sounds insensitive to you, but it really is the way life works.  And you know what, kids in third world countries aren't forced into working in a factory owned by a foreigner, they do it because the conditions in their country are so bad (more than likely because of socialist policies) that they and their families are actually better off (in some cases merely more able to survive) than they would be.  So the solution is not to force all of these greedy capitalists to stop exploiting child labor, that will only kill families

3.) the baker is an idiot when he hasnt an insurance that pays him for vandalism against him. that way he would share the cost of the window with many other members of that same insurance company and wouldnt have such a big harm.

3a) probablly an intersting discussion would be, whether or not a shopowneror every employer should the legally forced to be in some kind of insurance. why? if for instance his shop burns down he would probablly have costs that he wouldnt ever be able to pay back and lots of marketeers related to him would sit on their bills.

Ok, seriously, this was meant to be an elementary example to just explain the principle that just because extra, non needed expenditures give people jobs, doesn't mean we should bemoan efficiency.  But I'll bite.  Yes, the tailor should have vandalism insurance.  I'm surprised you would even say that; wouldn't it be more compassionate to socialize his losses because the boy was in effect just one of those hurtful things in society that nobody like the tailor could prevent?  Of course not.  

And no, nobody should be forced to pay for private insurance, but the flip side to that freedom is that the tailor must fulfill all of his obligations, unless they are renegotiated to the maximum benefit of both.  But that's the beauty of the marketplace, these losses fall on the people that have made the decision to either not get insurance or to do business with the person who wouldn't get insurance, not on the population as a whole.  So it is self correcting, much unlike programs run by the government; they are run at a perpetual loss, the losses fall on the entire population, and it is not politically feasible to take away a freebie or subsidy that has been entrenched in a population (social security or amtrak, anyone?)

Gotta go, more on that later.

[Nailec]

I do get that you were being sarcastic, and so was I to a degree, but the main thing that I was trying to get across is that while Germany (although I highly doubt they're footing any of the bill in this case) may have been able to afford those extra 6 days, and they may have provided people with jobs, no one will ever know the jobs that may have been created had the resources not been "wasted" on a longer hospital stay than was necessary.  I think you probably get that, but it's definitely one of the more widespread economic fallacies out there.

ha its sometimes ridicioulous how much german society loves having jobs. its almost absurd. while i see that at this time of history jobs are still necessary i would rather prefer societies that work towards as much freetime as possible or at least decreasing the working time bit by bit. if a new machine is invented that destroys jobs, everyone seems to rage about it. i dont know why people hate life so much that the prefer working.

I'm not really getting your point about the crowd discussing the morality of it, I mean it's meant to be a short economics book

yeah i was just irritated why the first thing a crowd would do, would be thinking about the economic side of this issue.

Here's a little thought experiment for you: do you think that back when our society was completely devoid of all technology and we were all living on farms, any government rules or re-distributions would have made it so children didn't have to work on the family farm or what have you?  That's what a third-world country is, a country that is so barren of devices to ease labor and increase production, that in order for the family to command the resources it needs to feed and sustain itself, the children are obligated to work or starve.  In these cases, no amount of child labor laws or food redistribution will actually help these countries BE ABLE to do away with child labor.  The economies themselves must become capital-intensive enough in order for the parents of a family to be able to sustain a whole family on just their own labor.  I'm sorry if this sounds insensitive to you, but it really is the way life works.  And you know what, kids in third world countries aren't forced into working in a factory owned by a foreigner, they do it because the conditions in their country are so bad (more than likely because of socialist policies) that they and their families are actually better off (in some cases merely more able to survive) than they would be.  So the solution is not to force all of these greedy capitalists to stop exploiting child labor, that will only kill families

sadly enough that is the situation for 3rd world countries. but im just no friend of relative morality. and if i demand a western company in the 3rd world to stop employing childs, i would not say that they are the ones that kill families. its the job of the countries government and the world society to prevent that.

Yes, the tailor should have vandalism insurance.  I'm surprised you would even say that; wouldn't it be more compassionate to socialize his losses because the boy was in effect just one of those hurtful things in society that nobody like the tailor could prevent?  Of course not. 

nah i guess that would send some wrong signals towards employers. and the working class will not be too happy when they have to pay for the risks of employers.


besides all that: has one of you empirical fact for the thesis that less taxes mean more charity?

[alvarezbassist17]

I do get that you were being sarcastic, and so was I to a degree, but the main thing that I was trying to get across is that while Germany (although I highly doubt they're footing any of the bill in this case) may have been able to afford those extra 6 days, and they may have provided people with jobs, no one will ever know the jobs that may have been created had the resources not been "wasted" on a longer hospital stay than was necessary.  I think you probably get that, but it's definitely one of the more widespread economic fallacies out there.

ha its sometimes ridicioulous how much german society loves having jobs. its almost absurd. while i see that at this time of history jobs are still necessary i would rather prefer societies that work towards as much freetime as possible or at least decreasing the working time bit by bit. if a new machine is invented that destroys jobs, everyone seems to rage about it. i dont know why people hate life so much that the prefer working.

I'm not really getting your point about the crowd discussing the morality of it, I mean it's meant to be a short economics book

yeah i was just irritated why the first thing a crowd would do, would be thinking about the economic side of this issue.

Here's a little thought experiment for you: do you think that back when our society was completely devoid of all technology and we were all living on farms, any government rules or re-distributions would have made it so children didn't have to work on the family farm or what have you?  That's what a third-world country is, a country that is so barren of devices to ease labor and increase production, that in order for the family to command the resources it needs to feed and sustain itself, the children are obligated to work or starve.  In these cases, no amount of child labor laws or food redistribution will actually help these countries BE ABLE to do away with child labor.  The economies themselves must become capital-intensive enough in order for the parents of a family to be able to sustain a whole family on just their own labor.  I'm sorry if this sounds insensitive to you, but it really is the way life works.  And you know what, kids in third world countries aren't forced into working in a factory owned by a foreigner, they do it because the conditions in their country are so bad (more than likely because of socialist policies) that they and their families are actually better off (in some cases merely more able to survive) than they would be.  So the solution is not to force all of these greedy capitalists to stop exploiting child labor, that will only kill families

sadly enough that is the situation for 3rd world countries. but im just no friend of relative morality. and if i demand a western company in the 3rd world to stop employing childs, i would not say that they are the ones that kill families. its the job of the countries government and the world society to prevent that.

Yes, the tailor should have vandalism insurance.  I'm surprised you would even say that; wouldn't it be more compassionate to socialize his losses because the boy was in effect just one of those hurtful things in society that nobody like the tailor could prevent?  Of course not. 

nah i guess that would send some wrong signals towards employers. and the working class will not be too happy when they have to pay for the risks of employers.


besides all that: has one of you empirical fact for the thesis that less taxes mean more charity?

I uploaded a paper for you here:

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=RKPO3OPN

Here's the basic point/summary of it: Writing in 1984 for the Journal of Political Economy, Russell Roberts found that private relief spending in America rose steadily until 1932, but then declined consistently thereafter as government welfare spending rose.  His conclusion: government welfare crowds out private giving almost dollar-for-dollar.  When government takes tax dollars for "charity," not only does it betray the voluntary nature of true charity, taxpayers in turn give less to private groups.

You're right that the point of an economy is to increase leisure time for everyone.  But the point is, the government cannot allocate an economy in a truly productive way.  It's literally impossible.

From what I can tell, we also agree on the fact that it's not corporations exploiting children that is the cause of child labor, it's the policies of the governments of the third world countries.  But i also look at them employing these kids (obviously not if it's in horrendous conditions) as altruistic because it truly helps their families survive.  I mean it sucks, and I would be completely for any magic bullet or foreign aid program that would cure that, but there really isn't, at all.  What's truly, truly needed by the global community is to stop the push for the rich countries just throwing money at the poor countries (which always ends up going straight to their corrupt governments, hurts the businesses of local farmers, and just pits one interest group versus another for allocation of the funds), and actually help the third world countries by encouraging free trade and sound economic and monetary policy so that they can actually finally build up their economies and help themselves.  All instead of just supporting their shit-ass governments and further impoverishing the population.

[Nailec]

agreed on everything you said.

as far as i know there is something called "new humanitarism". actually i dont know if its the correct term, so plz dont quote me on that. but my guess is that it has become better due to the way, several NGOs work these days.

You're right that the point of an economy is to increase leisure time for everyone.  But the point is, the government cannot allocate an economy in a truly productive way.  It's literally impossible.

explain why.

and yeah. the anti-globalization-movement will always blame corporations and too often stays silent about difficulties of other societies.

[alvarezbassist17]

There's a whole lot of reasons that a government can't allocate an economy, I have to be semi-brief, but I can go into more detail if needed.  Here's a few reasons:

#1:  A government does not have any resources of its own.  It can only redistribute currently existing resources, and these re-distributions are inherently politicized so they aren't put into place where they would be used most effectively, or if they were guided by the invisible hand of the market.

#2:  A government does not have any "skin in the game" so to speak.  Meaning, the resources they allocate do not belong to them, and are not personally at risk if the investments were to "fail," but in terms of government investment, because the investment was deemed politically necessary, the majority of the time a failure is propped up by taxes ad infinitum. 

#3:  It can really only rely on statistics (side note: a lot of people don't know this, but it's been documented that one of the only things that held the Soviet pricing system together was that they could get Sears catalogs on that side of the ocean) or whatever is most politically correct at that moment in history to determine where to invest.

#4:  The losses of government projects are socialized.  In a market, the losses from any given project are taken by only those who invested, not by society, so the incentive to either stop the investment or make it profitable (or sustainable, whatever your preferred nomenclature) is far greater.

It basically boils down to the fact that every government reallocation is inherently disconnected from the market functions that determine whether an investment is viable or a waste of resources.

[Nailec]

laughed so hard about this video

http://www.spiegel.de/video/video-1067475.html

russian parliament. 88 of 449 representatives are there and vote for the missing ones

[Nailec]

i was gone for some time and there is actually no anti-israel rants going on here?

im so proud right now!

[alvarezbassist17]

Well since you seem so disappointed, here's a good article.  Now I don't profess to be any expert on Israel or the conflict, but I would like you to explain why this article is wrong, if it is.

Israel and Palestine: A Statist War

Mises Daily: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 by Markus Bergstrom

In light of recent events in Israel and Palestine, it seems appropriate to put forth a suggestion on how this seemingly never-ending conflict could be solved. To end the ongoing violence in the region, many pro-Palestinians are calling for the complete abolition of the Israeli state. This is actually not a bad idea, but it only addresses part of the problem. The real solution is to abolish both the Israeli and Palestinian states — for as long as these governments exist, there can be no peace and freedom in the region.

Indeed, from a statist point of view, the conflict is in a constant stalemate; both the Israeli and Palestinian governments and much of "their" respective citizens are laying a claim on the same piece of land. Both sides also back these claims with separate religious and historical arguments in a word-against-word battle that is impossible to arbitrate in any objective manner.

Violence is of course a hallmark of the conflict. On the one hand, Islamist nationalists in Palestine carry out suicide bombings and grenade attacks against various targets in Israel, as they consider the Israeli government to be illegally occupying "Palestinian" land. On the other hand, the Israeli government bombs Palestinian areas where it claims terrorists are residing, often hitting and killing civilians instead. All these violent attacks incite counterattacks from the opposite party of the conflict, thus creating an unremitting spiral of violence.

The problem, however, isn't which side is right, i.e., which of the two governments is entitled to control all or parts of the Israeli/Palestinian territory. The problem is the very existence of these two governments to begin with — and the fact that they lay claims to any land at all.

Let's examine the two main proposals that are typically put forward by statists as a way to resolve this six-decade-long conflict.

First is the popular two-state solution, the general idea of which is that both governments should coexist side by side and reach a peace agreement that will put an end to the violence. A vital condition for these agreements is, of course, that the two governments — one "Israeli" and one "Palestinian" — come to a final conclusion on what piece of land should belong to what country.

At present the "State of Palestine" is split up into two different areas: the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. These are located some 25 miles apart (40 kilometers), which would make it very difficult to form one Palestinian country without joining these two areas geographically first. If this were done, however, Israel would get cut in half instead, which would be equally impractical. National outrage would also ensue among Israelis, particularly those living in the areas that would come under Palestinian rule.

It's also hard to imagine the Israeli government voluntarily handing over control of the West Bank to a Palestinian government, especially since it surrounds most of the city of Jerusalem, which is not only the de facto capital of Israel but is also considered a sacred city by both Jews and Muslims. Governments also have a tendency to try to expand their jurisdictions. This is certainly the case with the Israeli government, particularly regarding its presence in the West Bank. All this means the two governments would forever argue (or worse, fight) over which piece of land belongs to whom, as they both consider all or most of it to be rightfully theirs.

But even if this particular question were settled between the governments, they would still face the same problems with violence as before. After all, the main dispute that most radical Palestinian nationalists have with Israel doesn't concern the much-debated Israeli settlements in the West Bank, but rather the existence of the entire state of Israel itself. These Palestinians do not want to live under an Israeli government, no matter how small, and at the same time they consider all of Israel to belong to Palestine. Hence radical Islamists would continue their war against Israel for what they see as the continued illegitimate occupation of Palestine. The Israeli government would in turn retaliate by bombing Palestinian areas as a form of revenge or alleged terrorist hunt, thus sustaining the spiral of violence. All such attacks also have a hydra effect — kill one Palestinian or Israeli, and a dozen friends and relatives will swear to avenge the death of their loved one.

Further complicating the matter is the internal struggle for power within Palestine between Hamas and Fatah, parties that strive for two very different goals. Fatah, whose present stronghold is the West Bank, has shown interest in working with the Israeli government to achieve a two-state solution. In stark contrast, Gaza-based Hamas's primary goal is to get rid of the Israeli state altogether. Given Hamas's popularity and their militant activism, the prospect of political cooperation between the two parties is not a very realistic one.

It is also naive to think that a magical peace agreement will suddenly come along and settle all disputes between the two nations and all involved parties, especially judging by all former peace agreements that have been tried up until now. The latest of these were the Annapolis negotiations held in November 2007 (which Hamas boycotted), where the aim was to have a final resolution by the end of 2008. The grim irony here is that during the very last week of 2008 more than 400 people were killed in new clashes between Palestinians and the Israeli government.

This is why one must remember the core cause of the conflict, namely that the very existence of the Israeli state will never be tolerated by all Palestinians, and will always be met with violence. It is also a battle between two rivaling states, each competing for political and military control over the same territories.

This leads us to the second, less popular solution to the conflict, namely to merge the two warring nations into one single state. This could eliminate the border disputes, but leaves many other problems that would render this alternative an impossibility.

One of the most obvious of these would be the process of lawmaking within this new, unified country. One can only imagine the mayhem that would ensue if, for example, the present-ruling Israeli Kadima party and the Palestinian Hamas party were trying to cooperate on legislation, especially since Kadima (as well as the Likud party) consider Hamas a terrorist organization — and vice versa, in a sense. The major political parties from both countries have vastly differing opinions on everything from internal affairs to foreign policy: Israeli politicians tend to be more westernized and base much of their ethics in their Jewish faith, while most Palestinian politicians tend to be more left-wing and strongly influenced by Islam. Should then the present-day Israeli laws be preferred, or should the new government strive toward creating an "Islamic state" of the kind that Hamas wants to build? (This is not to say that all Israelis and Palestinians have diametrically differing views on ethics and politics, but it's a big enough problem to cause internal conflict on a grand scale.)

Another problem with the one-state solution concerns the balance of power within government. Israelis greatly outnumber Palestinians in the area, which means Palestinian politicians would most likely constitute a minority within parliament, and perhaps even be reduced to playing the role of constant opposition leaders. This would hardly please Palestinians seeking to decrease Israeli political power in the region. In fact, this system could quite possibly land the Palestinians less political power than they possess today. If the tables were turned, and the Palestinians and other Arabs got the upper hand in parliament through, say, a reverse Palestinian diaspora, many Israelis would find themselves in fierce disagreement with the government instead. This would doubtlessly provoke aggressive protests and civil unrest among Israelis.

A very real concern in both cases, then, would be that a civil war breaks out between "Palestinians" and "Israelis," or that large groups of people in some regions, such as Gaza, the West Bank, or parts of present-day Israel, would try to break free from the national state and form autonomous mini-states, using violence if necessary.

The differences in ethics and faith between Judaism and Islam generally poses no problem for a Jewish and a Muslim family living next door to each other (as they are both masters of their own property and lives), but becomes a major danger and obstacle for peace when turned into politics. After all, Jews and Muslims were living side by side for 13 centuries in the Arab world, until the creation of the State of Israel sparked hatred and conflict between the two groups in the region. This is therefore not a predominately religious conflict, but a political one.

Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal wrote the following in an editorial in the Guardian:

   Our message to the Israelis is this: We do not fight you because you belong to a certain faith or culture.... We have no problem with Jews who have not attacked us — our problem is with those who came to our land, imposed themselves on us by force, destroyed our society and banished our people.

Indeed, when the UN decided to split up the Palestine Mandate in 1947 and create the Israeli state, 70 percent of the population in the area was Palestinian, while the balance consisted of Zionist pioneers who owned approximately 8 percent of the land. Giving a minority group political power over other people's land in any part of the world and between any kind of ethnic or religious groups is asking for trouble.

One must also remember that it's not just Palestinians who are paying a high price in human lives from this conflict. The Israeli government jeopardizes the safety and well-being of Israelis, Jews and other civilians all over the world by its very existence. Countless hijackings and terrorist attacks have been carried out over several decades by pro-Palestinians as a protest against Israel. In one of the most recent examples, two Israeli salesmen were shot in Denmark around New Year by a Palestinian man in what is thought to have been an act of revenge for the Israeli government's recent attacks on the Gaza Strip. Just as many innocent Americans have been automatically associated with the cruel acts of George W. Bush, so have many innocent Israelis been associated with the misdeeds of the Israeli government.

Israel is often hailed by western supporters as a beacon of democracy in a region with largely undemocratic governments. This democratic "triumph," however, is actually one of the biggest obstacles for peace in this conflict. As Hans-Hermann Hoppe points out in his book Democracy: The God That Failed and elsewhere, democratic governments do not fear going to war with other countries and wasting enormous amounts of resources in the process.

There are several mainly economical reasons for this. One is the fact that Israeli politicians do not actually own the government of Israel, but are mere administrators of it. Thus they have little economic interest in keeping a tight rein on government spending, as they are only spending other people's money and for a limited time only. It also means that the government is less worried about the market value of the areas it invades or occupies, since the politicians as nonowners aren't in a position to sell the war-torn land once they've seized it. Using bombs and military might to fight any perceived foreign threats thus becomes an all too "easy" way out.

Democratic governments often succeed in making the greater population support such military campaigns by portraying them as necessary and natural responses to foreign attacks on "us" and "our nation," hence playing on basic patriotic sentiment.

Furthermore, since the government's main revenue source is taxation, i.e., extracting money from "customers" by force or threat of force, there are no sales-based profit-and-loss calculations to take into consideration. For most governments, spending more than they earn is a rule rather than an exception. Indeed, the "national" debt of Israel has been trailing the 100%-of-GDP mark for several years, standing at more than 80% in late 2007.

Governments also have no competitors to fear, in the sense that no one else can poach their "clients" by giving them a better deal on police protection or other services presently monopolized by the government. "Value for money" is therefore a catchphrase that governments scarcely need pay attention to.

Contrast all this with the "third" solution: to abolish both the Israeli and Palestinian states. First, this would, without a doubt, free the region of a great deal of the conflicts experienced today. After all, the goal of all Palestinian militant groups — to get rid of the Israeli state — would now be fulfilled. Hence there would be no "need" for them to attack any parts of former Israel, as there would be no Israeli government to fight. In return, there would not be any "need" for former Israeli troops to bomb Palestinian areas in a war against terrorism.

Secondly, the private protection agencies taking on the task of offering police and military protection would operate in a radically different way than the present governments. Unlike politicians, the owners of such agencies would always have to take into consideration whether spending huge amounts of money on wars would be a good way of settling disputes. This decision would be made easier by the fact that these agencies have very limited budgets, thanks to their revenue stream coming from voluntary customers. Wars are costly and would dig a deep hole in any protection agency's budget, which they wouldn't be able to just crawl out of by raising taxes, printing money, or going into huge debt by selling the equivalent of government bonds.

Furthermore, the protection agencies would have to compete among themselves for customers, which means going out of their way to offer the "value for money" that governments so arrogantly disregard. This means good services at low prices, which also doesn't leave much of a profit share to be spent on wars. Customers would also be more interested in their protection agencies spending any profits on improving their protection and lowering prices rather than wasting money on senseless wars.

But isn't Palestine a largely anarchist society today? The short answer is no. While some parts of the West Bank are de facto in what could be described as a state of "anarchy," at least two governments are competing for control over these areas. Much of Somalia was also "stateless" for several years, but during that whole time at least three governments (the United States, the Ethiopian, and the exiled Somali government) were intervening and trying to destabilize and gain control over the country. Just because there is limited government control doesn't mean that there's no government control.

But what about the governments of Iran, Syria, or other neighboring countries? Wouldn't they seize the opportunity to invade the stateless Israel/Palestine area? For starters, it's difficult to see what the target of this attack would be. With the aggressive Israeli government gone, and Israelis and Palestinians living side by side with no ability to oppress each other through political means, there would be nothing for these bandit states to attack.

If the Iranian government or others saw the stateless Israeli/Palestinian region as an opportunity to march in and establish an Islamic state (which of course would require the use of force, just as with the creation of any government), they would have to fight the protection agencies first. This may, at a first glance, seem like a walk in the park for the Iranian military to defeat a group of private, independent protection agencies with much smaller "armies," but looks can deceive. There are basically two ways to defeat any large government army: one method is to have an even bigger and more advanced army, and the other is by using small militias and insurgency groups. There are countless historical examples of the latter: the Vietcong against the US military; the Taliban against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan; the Americans against the British government during the American Revolution; and, for that matter, the militant Palestinian groups that have kept the Israeli army busy for half a century.

It's a lot more difficult to fight an enemy who doesn't "exist" or isn't clearly recognizable and definable than it is to fight a government army. This is, of course, something the US government has come to realize during the war in Iraq. At first the US military easily defeated the worn-down Iraqi-government army, but since then it has spent more than $500 billion fighting Iraqi insurgents who come out of nowhere and blend in with the locals.

Furthermore, many of today's Israelis are both well armed and well trained for combat, thanks to Israel's stormy past. This would likely continue to be the case in a stateless Israel, particularly among Jews, given the high number of rogue Islamic states nearby.

Conclusively, it is vital for the Zionist movement to realize that the idea of an Israeli land does not equate to, nor require, an Israeli state. It is also vital to realize that there can never be peace and stability in the region as long as there is an Israeli government, nor can there ever be a "free Palestine" as long as there is a Palestinian government. The only way to achieve prosperity is through peace and commerce, and that can only come through a stateless society.

[alvarezbassist17]

A Statist Attack on John Stossel
By Jacob Hornberger
Published 06/04/10

If you want to understand why America is in deep crisis on the domestic front, consider an op-ed entitled "Tell Fox to Lay Off Our Civil Rights" by a liberal named James Rucker. The op-ed perfectly encapsulates the statist mindset that has mired our nation in paternalism, welfarism, socialism, and interventionism, along with the out-of-control federal spending, debt, taxes, and inflation that now threaten the United States with national bankruptcy.

Here's what Rucker says. He wants people to sign his petition to have Fox News fire John Stossel. What's his reason for trying to cost Stossel his job? Stossel made the long-time libertarian point that a free society entails the right to discriminate against anyone for any reason one wants. That's what freedom of choice is all about -- the right to make not only the right choices but also the wrong ones, so long as the choice is a non-violent one.

Or another way to put it is that freedom encompasses a concept called freedom of association. Free people have the right to choose the people they wish to associate with. The corollary of that principle is the right to not associate with people one doesn't wish to associate with. Libertarians have long argued that no one should be forced to associate with someone he doesn't wish to associate with for whatever reason.

To put the matter bluntly, under the principles of a genuinely free society, a bigot has a right to be a bigot. We can disapprove of his bigotry, and we can criticize and condemn it. We can ostracize and avoid the bigot. But the fact remains: If people are not free to choose the people with whom they wish to associate and not associate, then they cannot genuinely be considered free.

Rucker takes this principle and jumps to the old tired bromide that essentially says, "Well, if you defend freedom of association, then you must be a bigot yourself."

Moreover, Rucker summarily rejects the libertarian argument, which Stossel emphasized, that a free society will nudge people to higher levels of conscience, conscientious behavior, responsibility, and charity through the exercise of choice, and through such peaceful means as boycotts, social ostracism, moral condemnation, and the like.

How long have we heard this Rucker-like argument whenever we libertarians have condemned the war on drugs, a war that is, not surprisingly, as beloved to liberals as it is to conservatives. "Since you call for drug legalization, then you must favor drug abuse. And if we were legalize drugs, as you libertarians suggest, everyone would go on drugs."

The statist mindset simply does not permit the statist to comprehend the critically important part of freedom -- that freedom entails making bad choices. That's why statists embrace paternalistic government. They want the government to stomp out all bad choices by putting people who make bad choices into jail.

Why do you think we have Social Security? It's because children should honor their mother and father by funding their retirement. That's the correct choice. Why not simply leave young people free to keep their own money and decide whether to help their parents out or not? Because some of them would make the wrong choice! Under statism, that wrong choice simply cannot be permitted.

What do statists say about libertarians, who call for the repeal of Social Security? They say, "Calling for repeal of Social Security proves that libertarians hate old people and would love to see them dying in the streets, which is precisely what would happen if there was no Social Security."

Why do you think we have welfare? Because it's right that people help the poor. Why shouldn't people be free to keep their own money and decide for themselves whether to use it to help the poor? Because some of them would make the wrong decision! Statists cannot tolerate that. That's why we have an IRS and federal welfare agencies.

What do statists say about libertarians, who call for the repeal of the federal income tax and all welfare? "This just goes to show that libertarians hate the poor and hope that they all die, which is precisely what would happen if there were no IRS and welfare."

The world is mired in statism. In some countries, statists endorse book banning. Their reasoning is the same as that of Rucker's. People can't be left free to make the right choices as to what to read. The government must ensure that bad choices are not made. Leave it to the collective decision of society to decide the proper reading material for people, and leave it to the government to punish those who read the wrong materials.

But let's look at the positive side of things. At least Rucker is addressing his petition to fire Stossel to the executives at Fox News rather than running to the federal government to force his firing. Hey, that's the type of thing we libertarians say should be employed against bigots in a free society! Maybe we libertarians are making a bit of progress after all.

[goldpony]

i just can't reconcile the above post. people seem to forget the reasoning behind things like Social Security, Welfare and Affirmative Action. The New Deal programs and their ilk were set up to protect the most vulnerable to the machinations of the greedy and dishonest.


Many elderly people were living in poverty due to not being able to work and not having any safety net. Also, those elderly people who made 'the right choice' by saving their money were burned when the banks and wall street went under.

welfare was set up because it was recognized that even when people living in poverty made the 'right choice' poverty tends to be feedback loop that is difficult to escape. similar to today were many people can't get a job because of poor credit. why do they have poor credit? they can't find a job and were forced to make 'bad choices' concerning credit in order to avoid poverty.

Affirmative Action was set up because it was recognized that if people are left to make their owbn choices on who to associate with and hire, it would take significantly longer (like maybe forever) for peopel to change their mindsets about the worth, abilities and talents of those different from them.

Do i always agree with this? no, but i see the flip side as well and have to believe our nation (and i speak only to the US) is better off for these decisions. it is hard for the generations that came after these things to see the need sometimes, but one only has to study history and determine what things were like before these were enacted to see the true worth of these programs.

Are these programs abused? yes, but again people are free to make their own choices and only themselves and God can judge whether it is moral to abuse these programs. sure the goverment can step up enforcement, but that would entail bigger goverment and intrusion into personal liberties in some cases.

[alvarezbassist17]

Yeah, I've heard all of that before, but you really don't understand the fact that in a free society not only should people ethically be responsible for their savings rather than their neighbor, but it is far more possible to save for retirement.  When a country's government has sound money and isn't pillaging an economy of its resources and people hold dollars, the amount of products they can purchase goes up over time proportionate to the value of their money.  So when you save a dollar, not only do you receive interest, but by that time in an ever more productive society your real income or wealth has also increased, meaning your dollar can buy more goods because there is more available because of higher production.  So if this process is allowed to occur, which it hasn't in anywhere close to the way it should since the inception of the Federal Reserve and since FDR shoved Social Security (as well as numerous other interventionist measures) down America's throats (using all of the reasons you gave, which are fallacious on many levels which I would be glad to explain), people are actually able to save and multiply their real wealth without having to deal with all of this as well:

The Social Security Scam

Mises Daily: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 by Mark Brandly

The release of the 2009 Social Security Trustees Report indicates that the current economic crisis has negatively impacted the Social Security budget. It's now projected that by 2016 Social Security spending will exceed revenues. According to the report, the financial condition of the Social Security program "remains challenging" and "need(s) to be addressed soon." A look at the numbers shows us the severity of the Social Security budget problem.

Social Security is a "pay-as-you-go" system. This means that when you work, the government takes your money and gives it to Social Security recipients. In order to get workers to accept this system, the government promises to take other people's money and give it to you when you retire. Think of it as an exponentially larger version of Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme.

As long as a lot of people die before collecting any benefits, or die without collecting many benefits, the system is financially sound. In 1950, the worker-to-beneficiary ratio was 16.5-to-1. With people living longer, the worker to beneficiary ratio has fallen to 3.1-to-1 and within 20 years it's expected to drop to 2.1-to-1. Due to this falling ratio, over the years the feds have raised tax rates and now must consider further adjustments.

Let's look at the revenue side of things. Each worker's income below about $106,800 is taxed at a 12.4 percent rate. There are no deductions for this tax. All income is taxable income. Even those in the lowest income brackets have roughly one-eighth of their income taken from them to fund the Social Security system.

Few workers, however, understand the tax burden of the Social Security system. On their paychecks, they see that 6.2 percent of their gross pay goes to pay for Social Security. What they don't see is that employers match this tax payment with an equal 6.2 percent payment. It may seem that employers are paying half of the Social Security taxes, but that's not the case. Even though the employers are legally liable for one-half of the tax, they shift the tax onto workers in the form of lower gross wages. Therefore, the Social Security tax burden, 12.4 percent of each worker's gross pay, falls on workers. Half of this burden is hidden from the workers.

Currently, the Social Security Administration is running a budget surplus. For 2008, Social Security revenues totaled $805 billion and benefit payments and administrative costs were $625 billion, resulting in a surplus of $180 billion. Over the years, the system has run up an overall surplus totaling $2.4 trillion.

What has happened to this surplus? The SSA took in $180 billion more than it spent in 2008. However, the federal government spent this $180 billion on other programs. Since the funds were spent on something other than Social Security, the government declares that it loaned itself the $180 billion, calling such "lending" intragovernmental debt. For all Social Security revenues that are spent on non-Social Security programs, the Treasury department issues bonds to the SSA and those bonds are held in the Trust Fund. Surely we can have confidence in anything called a Trust Fund.

Think of this type of lending for a moment. The federal government is in debt to itself. Compare this to debt in the private sector. No business declares that it's deep in debt because it loaned itself money. It's the same with families. Parents don't lay awake at night trying to figure out how to repay the money they loaned themselves. The government, however, thinks that it makes perfect sense to collect $100 of tax revenue, spend the $100, and then declare that it now owes itself $100. This scheme is not limited to Social Security. Currently, federal intragovernmental debt for all programs totals $4.3 trillion.

How should we think about this intragovernmental debt? The Treasury department collects $100 in Social Security taxes, the SSA spends $70 on Social Security benefits, and the other $30 goes to, let's say, military spending. Since $30 was collected for Social Security, but spent on the military, the Trust Fund now has $30 of bonds. The bonds are simply promises of future taxes. The feds collected the money for Social Security and now they are going to collect taxes again for Social Security spending. The $2.4 trillion of bonds in the Trust fund represent Social Security revenues that need to be collected a second time, since the tax revenues did not go towards Social Security spending when they were initially collected. In fact, all of the intragovernmental debt represents future higher taxes.

The interest on the bonds in the Trust Fund is another issue. In 2008, the SSA racked up $116 billion of interest payments on its $2.4 trillion of bonds, interest payments that were made in the form of more Treasury bonds for the Trust Fund. The government loans itself money and then issues bonds (read, higher taxes) to pay itself interest on that lending. This is not an insignificant amount. In the last ten years, the SSA has collected $754 billion of interest on its share of the intragovernmental debt.

Though the SSA is currently running a budget surplus, its financial position is rapidly deteriorating. With the glut of upcoming retirements, the worker-to-beneficiary ratio is falling and Social Security spending is rising much fast than its revenue source. A year ago, the SSA estimated that the system would be solvent until 2017. Falling revenues due to the recession have resulted in a new estimate of 2016. At that point, the system will need additional tax revenues to be able to pay the promised benefits.

The Trustees Report declares that, starting in 2016, the "deficits will be made up by redeeming trust fund assets until reserves are exhausted in 2037." This is sleight of hand. The actual day of reckoning is 2016, not 2037. By 2037, the Trust Fund will be depleted. But the Trust Fund is irrelevant. Regardless of the status of the Trust Fund, if the current estimates are correct, beginning in 2016, the system will need significant additional tax revenues.

The shortfall starts in 2016, but increases rapidly. According to the report, Social Security–tax income will only be able to finance 76 percent of scheduled annual benefits in 2037.

The report calls for "an immediate 16 percent increase in the payroll tax (from a rate of 12.4 percent to 14.4 percent) or an immediate reduction in benefits of 13 percent or some combination of the two" to bring the system into actuarial balance.

Making the system sustainable will require higher taxes or benefits reductions. These reductions could be achieved by either reducing the benefits per recipient or reducing the number of beneficiaries — say, by raising the minimum age requirements. The solution is to give workers a negative rate of return on the money that is taken from them. It would also help if some workers collected no benefits at all. Workers who are taxed and then die before collecting any benefits are a boon to the system. Maybe the federal government should rethink its war on tobacco.

This system is a massive income-redistribution scheme, taking one-eighth of most workers' incomes. The total tax burden is hidden from the workers. The tax revenues have been used to cover the deficits in the rest of the government's budgets, and the only way to make the system sustainable is to give the participants a negative rate of return on their money.

The Social Security system has run its course. It's unfair and it's economically destructive. It's time for the program to be abolished.

(end article)

And in addition to Social Security, Washington has taken innumerable measures to spur people to spend rather than save (who the fuck would want to save their money at 1 or 2%?), which has not only lead to a beyond gigantic financial mess, but has also created the kind of spending/debt-laden culture we live in.

If you want to know even more about Social Security, here's a wonderful (but 56-page) article:

http://mises.org/pdf/asc/essays/attarian.pdf

Abstract:

This is a concise critical history of the federal program of Old-Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance (OASDI), popularly known as Social Security. It focuses on a crucial but underexamined aspect of the program: how Social Security was marketed to the American public, the false consciousness which that marketing created, and how that false consciousness is a cause of the current political quagmire—and the likely meltdown of the program sometime in this century and its subsequent inability to pay full benefits on time to the retiring baby boomers.

[alvarezbassist17]

Many elderly people were living in poverty due to not being able to work and not having any safety net. Also, those elderly people who made 'the right choice' by saving their money were burned when the banks and wall street went under.

welfare was set up because it was recognized that even when people living in poverty made the 'right choice' poverty tends to be feedback loop that is difficult to escape. similar to today were many people can't get a job because of poor credit. why do they have poor credit? they can't find a job and were forced to make 'bad choices' concerning credit in order to avoid poverty.

Do i always agree with this? no, but i see the flip side as well and have to believe our nation (and i speak only to the US) is better off for these decisions. it is hard for the generations that came after these things to see the need sometimes, but one only has to study history and determine what things were like before these were enacted to see the true worth of these programs.

Are these programs abused? yes, but again people are free to make their own choices and only themselves and God can judge whether it is moral to abuse these programs. sure the goverment can step up enforcement, but that would entail bigger goverment and intrusion into personal liberties in some cases.

And you also have to realize that all of these problems you cite were themselves functions of previous government intervention, most clearly the crashes in banking and wall street.  Have you ever heard of the Austrian Business Cycle Theory?

Affirmative Action was set up because it was recognized that if people are left to make their owbn choices on who to associate with and hire, it would take significantly longer (like maybe forever) for peopel to change their mindsets about the worth, abilities and talents of those different from them.

But this is a total fallacy for a number of reasons.  

1.  In a free market, if you turn down somebody for a position, not only can you be considered a bigot by society around you and deal with all of the consequences of that, but you also may have turned down the best person for the job.  Take Oprah or any non-white athlete, for an obvious example.  It would be absolutely stupid for someone to turn these people down because they aren't white, because they would be losing out on massive amounts of revenue, and there's no doubt that their competition would hire them in a heartbeat.  It's the same thing with any profession: if you're basing your choice for hiring somebody based on their race rather than their merits, you will be losing out on their potential merits and will give someone else without the bias the opportunity to benefit from those merits.  

2.  Nobody can claim to know how long it would have taken for slavery to have been driven away in complete market freedom because there were numerous laws by the government at both the state and federal levels before the civil war that prevented market solutions for slavery.  Same with Jim Crow laws, because the emphasis is on LAW.  The point is, #1 wasn't allowed to happen on many levels because of government intervention.

3.  This is a complete misconstruction of the principles behind rights.  The simplest way to put it is that every person has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (property), but my rights end where your rights begin.  So to say that I have a right to a job means that someone has to violate your rights to give me a job, same with health care, etc.  You have to take from someone to give to another.  So somebody not giving somebody else a job is their right because the person that doesn't get the job has not had their rights violated, i.e. they are no worse off than they were before, they have had nothing taken from them and no violence was committed against them.  The opposite is true if you force someone to give someone else a job or health care, because you're violating their right to their property (or pursuit of happiness if you want).  So if they're a bigot, that is their right as long as they are not violating the rights of others.  This may sound evil to you, but also within those rights is the right for people to ostracize bigots or boycott entrepreneurs, and in the case of entrepreneurs, someone new who does not have the burden of racism or some other new advantage will be able to take their place.  

4.  If you enforce Affirmative Action/disparate impact combating/quota type programs across the board, you are pretty much indicting every person and organization as inherently racist unless they follow the programs exactly.  Do you really think that helps anything?

But really, just look at it from a market perspective.  Is it really in anyone's interest to be racist anymore anyways?

[goldpony]

i agree with every point you make. i believe in free markets and the theory behind them as well as personal and ethical responsibility. however you have to remember these are rational arguements based on sound morals. call me cynical but not everyone operates with the integrity of you and me.

for instance the points you make about affirmative action seem to discount the thoughts, feelings and upbringing (i'm a firm believer, after having children and observing their behavior, that racism is learned) of those denying an equal oppurtunity. if everyone is a bigot, who is going to tell them they are wrong?

the tax burden arguement is interesting as well. again this assumes that everything is equal and no bias is involved. do i want a lower salary in return for a small handout when i retire? no. i would much rather earn more, have my employer act in an ethical manner in regards to pay, save and invest, have my financial advisors act in a responsible manner and retire with largesse. but as we clearly saw, the people in charge of our money and investments got greedy (surprise) and affected not just themeselves and their institutions but the financial security of the entire country.

again, i lean liberterian myself but i also see the role people play in this world and have to be pragmatic even if i dont agree. because it is anyones right to act how they please despite consequences.

[alvarezbassist17]

What you're missing is that nothing that government can do can keep greed in check or make people responsible.  I mean look at all of these programs, you would think that we would be living in a utopia with all of these interventions made to take care of us.  Only the market can keep greed in check because if all unfair advantages given by government are taken away, people would have to unarguably benefit their fellow man to satisfy their greed lest some less greedy person threaten their profits.  Same principle behind racism, you could argue that people wouldn't care about a racist manager or what have you and would still patronize their establishment, but that is under the assumption that society is inherently racist or could revert back to complete racism, which I completely reject based on reason #1 I gave.  I dunno, I could be misunderstanding you, but through all of my research, I have come to the conclusion that there is no better regulator of behavior than the market.

the tax burden arguement is interesting as well. again this assumes that everything is equal and no bias is involved. do i want a lower salary in return for a small handout when i retire? no. i would much rather earn more, have my employer act in an ethical manner in regards to pay, save and invest, have my financial advisors act in a responsible manner and retire with largesse. but as we clearly saw, the people in charge of our money and investments got greedy (surprise) and affected not just themeselves and their institutions but the financial security of the entire country.

You should really do some research on the Austrian Business Cycle Theory.  Economies don't naturally have boom and bust cycles, it is a function of manipulation of the money supply as well as interest rates that makes all of these entrepreneurs all of a sudden make mistakes.  I don't have the time to explain it right now, but I can refer you to a whole lot of material that proves that all of our fucked up finances are functions of government intervention.  To start out with, here's an explanation of the current crisis that I highly recommend:

http://media.mises.org/mp3/misescircle-greenville09/05_MCGreenville_2009_Woods.mp3

If you lean Libertarian, you really ought to go peruse www.mises.org and search some various topics that you think you might differ from their platform on and read some articles.  You'll probably be pleasantly surprised.  It's completely scholarly, devoid of conspiracy theories, and I've never found such a wonderful resource.  And your jaw will drop when you realize the amount of revisionist history that's taught by our schools and propagated by our media.

[Necrocetaceanbeastiality]

I'd just like to point out that, as a person on welfare, it always bothers me when people say "do away with welfare". If it weren't for welfare and the state paying for all my medical procedures, I would be dead.

Also...I don't think anyone said anything about welfare, so I dunno where that came from.

[alvarezbassist17]

I feel you Josh, and when I think of the problems with welfare, it's not the people that are physically unable to work enough to pay for their medical bills or whatnot that I have a problem putting on welfare.  To be completely honest, I wouldn't necessarily oppose that specific kind of welfare, but if I were to give my money to support someone like you, I would much rather give it to a specific, private charity rather than dump it in some government fund (one may say, but there's no charities around or not enough, but my response would be you have to ask yourself why there aren't.  And it's because of the things I mainly harp on: government intervention into medical care, people thinking that the government's got these people covered so now I needn't donate to help my neighbor, and the depletion of disposable incomes through taxes, regulations and absolutely beyond terrible monetary policy).  And also, the price of medical care is absolutely inflated like crazy right now; if we had a free market in health care, things would be a hell of a lot more affordable and someone like you would either need less assistance or would be able to raise their standard of living without giving up necessary medical care.

So yeah, I mean you could make the argument that within our current fucked-up system that welfare is necessary, and I would have a hard time disagreeing with you, but it doesn't solve the problem of a lack of private charities to take care of people in need, all of our unemployment-spurring policies, and the massive amounts of price inflation, most notably for medical care in this case, but also in energy, education, etc. etc. because those are also unneeded costs that people could use to help their fellow man.

[alvarezbassist17]

Anyone here from Connecticut?

Schiff for Senate petition drive update

[blixa]

i really enjoyed that article about abolishing both palestine and israel.

"our problem is with those who came to our land, imposed themselves on us by force, destroyed our society and banished our people."

khaled meshaal should study the entire history of the middle east. he will find that this is the way that arabs came to control the majority of the land while the indigenous people are left with nothing, no land and no rights.

[alvarezbassist17]

I just started reading this book, called The Roosevelt Myth.  I'm pretty excited about it; although I feel like I know the gist of a lot of the stuff he'll talk about, I really like knowing actual history behind things.  Especially since FDR was quite arguably the worst president in US history.  Here's a link to the book if anyone cares to find out why for themselves:

http://mises.org/books/rooseveltmyth.pdf

[alvarezbassist17]

i really enjoyed that article about abolishing both palestine and israel.

"our problem is with those who came to our land, imposed themselves on us by force, destroyed our society and banished our people."

khaled meshaal should study the entire history of the middle east. he will find that this is the way that arabs came to control the majority of the land while the indigenous people are left with nothing, no land and no rights.

I do want to make it clear that I for sure don't, and I don't believe that the author support or sympathize with violent-natured Arabs any more than violent-natured Israelis.  I sympathize with the innocent people who have had nothing to do with perpetuating the bloodletting and while I don't profess to know the whole story, from what I've heard and my acquaintance with Libertarian theory, I don't really know what would really prevent deaths the best in the situation besides not allowing anyone in that area to achieve political power over anyone else.