Independent Country

Super Bowl Quarterbacks

2012-01-31T20:33:00.000-08:00

Check out my latest at The Partial Observer - Super Bowl Quarterbacks. Rates the careers of every qb who started the game.

The Partial Observer - Revamping the NFL Playoffs

2012-01-24T18:59:00.000-08:00

Check out my latest at The Partial Observer - Revamping the NFL Playoffs.

Stop Taxing Our Children

2012-01-24T07:33:00.000-08:00

Check out the latest at DownsizeDC.org: Stop Taxing Our Children

Iran's Defiance is Not Surprising

2012-01-12T07:18:00.000-08:00

At DownsizeDC: Iran's Defiance is Not Surprising: "The endless and increasingly stiff sanctions against Iran only encourages that nation to seek any kind of leverage."

How Louis C.K. Discouraged Online Piracy - Without Help From the State

2012-01-04T08:59:00.000-08:00

Check out my latest at the Downsize DC Foundation. Excerpt:

Can creative performance artists thrive in the Internet age?

Media companies say no. Their business is to distribute artists'
content and then lobby the Federal
State state to pass bills such as the
Stop Online Piracy Act.

But what happens when the artist goes around them?

The comedian Louis C.K. decided to find out.

The Partial Observer - Rolling Up the Score, Passer Ratings, and NFL Prediction Results

2012-01-03T18:25:00.000-08:00

Check out my latest at The Partial Observer - Rolling Up the Score, Passer Ratings, and NFL Prediction Results. The title says it all.

Why Are Today's Politicians So Incompetent?

2011-12-28T07:07:00.000-08:00

Check out my latest at the Downsize DC Foundation. Excerpt:

I'm inclined to agree that the quality of our politicians has gotten worse. The
same holds true for our Presidential candidates. In my post-Watergate youth
there were few candidates who frightened me, but in recent cycles most of the
candidates have been people I wouldn't hire for ANY job, let alone the position
of President.

Peace on Earth, Good Will to ALL

2011-12-25T05:00:00.000-08:00

Source: http://www.downsizedcfoundation.org/blog/peace-on-earth-good-will-to-all

This is a special message from the Downsize DC Foundation...

Christmas Day, and the whole Holiday Season, is a time when many people sing songs about "peace on Earth, good will to men."

Even for the non-religious, this ideal of Christmas can warm the heart.

But the feeling quickly passes... often as soon as we turn on the news or go on the Internet.

The ill will starts to flow, against...

Democrats or Republicans
Muslims or Christians or atheists
Persons who live "alternative" lifestyles or persons who uphold "traditional" values

Whoever we are, and whatever our values, we often feel under attack. We believe that OTHER PEOPLE - inside and outside our country -- want to undermine our values or way of life.

But there's one common element. No matter what "side" we are on, we usually tend to think as AMERICANS. We ask questions like...

What is America coming to?
Has America lost its way?
Is such-and-such good for America?

It is natural to think this way. After all, we are Americans. This is our home. Of course we have an interest in our home.

But, we are human beings first.

When we think of "peace on Earth, good will to men," does this mean peace for just some parts of the planet, or all of it? Is it good will to some people, or to all?

Are poverty and unemployment important only when Americans suffer?
Is war tragic only when Americans suffer?
Do your rights come from your American citizenship, or are they inherent in your humanity -- in the humanity of all persons on the planet?
Is the use of violence and coercion the path to peace and good will?
Isn't it possible that the people you resent and fear the most, might also have reasons to resent and fear YOU?
And if resentment and manipulation causes trouble in personal relationships, should we give our consent to States to routinely use coercion and violence?

It seems healthy that we do more than sing about "peace on earth, good will to men." Perhaps, we should actually give real thought to why we have not yet reached this ideal.

We hope you find these questions helpful.

Merry Christmas to you and yours!

The Downsize DC Team

The Vain Pursuit of Perfection

2011-12-20T16:59:00.000-08:00

Check out my latest: The Partial Observer - The Vain Pursuit of Perfection

Excerpt:

We have seen other great achievements from the 1970's or 60's that have yet to
be duplicated. No male tennis player has won the Grand Slam since Rod Laver did
it twice in the 1960's. No team has won the NFL championship three years in a
row since the Packers in the 1960's. No NFL team has had a perfect record before
or since the 1972 Miami Dolphins. Tiger Woods may be in decline, and still needs
five Majors to eclipse Jack Nicklaus. A few of John Wooden's UCLA basketball
teams went undefeated, and Bobby Knight's Indiana team duplicated the feat in
1976, but no one has done it since.These long-ago achievements loom large. It's
almost too much to ask for anyone to reach them.

My Latest: If I Became Basketball Dictator

2011-12-13T19:49:00.000-08:00

Check out my latest at The Partial Observer - If I Became Basketball Dictator: let's make the NBA a real Association instead of a league!

The Greed Fallacy

2011-12-06T07:44:00.000-08:00

My latest for Downsize DC: The Greed Fallacy

The Department of Justice Says You're A Criminal

2011-11-29T10:57:00.000-08:00

From DownsizeDC.org: The Department of Justice Says You're A Criminal

2011: Best Year and Worst Year For Sports

2011-11-22T20:30:00.000-08:00

Check out my latest at The Partial Observer - 2011: Best Year and Worst Year For Sports

Ideology and Climate Change

2011-11-10T16:44:00.000-08:00

My latest at The Downsize DC Foundation: Ideology and Climate Change

My latest at The Partial Observer - Stumbling Upon Evil

2011-11-09T06:11:00.000-08:00

The Partial Observer - Stumbling Upon Evil - about the Penn State scandal.

The TSA Monster Is Coming For You

2011-10-31T07:01:00.000-07:00

New at DownsizeDC.org: The venomous VIPR program is snaking its way across America's roads and railways

Check out my latest at The Partial Observer - Black Madness: A College Football Play-off Plan

2011-10-25T08:57:00.000-07:00

The Partial Observer - Black Madness: A College Football Play-off Plan

Check out my latest at The Partial Observer - The Greed Cop-Out

2011-10-18T07:19:00.000-07:00

The Partial Observer - The Greed Cop-Out

Downsize DC on Prohibition

2011-10-12T11:41:00.000-07:00

Taking action against the Drug War and other prohitions: Prohibit Prohibition

Two criticisms I have against the otherwise-excellent Ken Burns Prohibition documentary.

The Partial Observer - When Silver and Black was the New Black

2011-10-11T17:17:00.000-07:00

Check out my latest about Al Davis: When Silver and Black was the New Black

Downsize DC on Trade

2011-10-10T08:08:00.000-07:00

At DownsizeDC.org, we're taking action against the China tariff bill.

And at the Downsize DC Foundation is a post about the trade deficit: Is the Sun an Unfair Trading Partner?

Downsize DC Impeachment Links

2011-10-05T07:18:00.000-07:00

If a President commits murder and he isn't impeached, then for what CAN he be impeached? DownsizeDC.org is calling for impeachment of Barack Obama, explained in these posts:

NEW HERESY: Should Congress Impeach the President?

Press Release: Impeach the President

Is it Partisan to Call for Impeachment?

My latest at The Partial Observer - In Defense of Bribery

2011-10-04T06:08:00.000-07:00

The Partial Observer - In Defense of Bribery

From DownsizeDC.org: NEW HERESY: Oppose the E-Verify National ID System

2011-10-03T11:00:00.000-07:00

NEW HERESY: Oppose the E-Verify National ID System

My Latest at the Downsize DC Foundation: The REAL Immigration Problem

2011-09-29T18:22:00.000-07:00

There isn't enough of it.

My Latest at Downsize DC: The Department of Energy's Welfare Queens

2011-09-28T10:51:00.000-07:00

The Department of Energy's Welfare Queens

Check Out My Latest: The Partial Observer - Why Weird Al Should Do the Super Bowl Halftime Show

2011-09-27T10:02:00.000-07:00

The Partial Observer - Why Weird Al Should Do the Super Bowl Halftime Show

Armchair Anaylist: Belated NFL Predictions 2011

2011-09-20T01:37:00.000-07:00

This is my NEW column at the Partial Observer. Tagline: "No, I didn't even take into account the first two weeks of this season."

9/11 Ten Years Later

2011-09-06T05:34:00.000-07:00

Check out my latest at the Partial Observer: Excerpt:

It is tempting to say that it is impossible to imagine the federal government being more mismanaged - in foreign policy, domestic policy, and civil liberties - than it has in the past ten years.

But some perspective is in order. The 1964-74 LBJ-Nixon years sent 50,000 Americans to die in Vietnam, their anti-poverty programs led to an explosion of crime and family breakdown, and Medicare helped put America on a fiscally unsustainable path. Before that, the big-spending, pro-regulation methods of Hoover and FDR kept a generation mired in poverty.

Predicting NFL Quarterback Success

2011-08-31T09:54:00.000-07:00

Check out my latest at the Partial Observer.

The italicized disclaimer may say it best:

Author's Note: This column is in the process of a transition away from a primary focus on politics and policy, which I write about in other venues. In this space I will tend to write about anything that interests me and inspires me to write.

The "other venues" include DownsizeDC.org and the DownsizeDCFoundation.org. I am NOT necessarily putting a stop to writing about politics at the PO, just that they will appear less frequently.

Do Twists of Fate Make A Difference?

2011-08-15T21:04:00.000-07:00

Check out my latest at The Partial Observer. Excerpt:

In 1969, Diane Keaton auditioned for Woody Allen's play Play It Again, Sam. The problem was, Allen was to be her romantic counterpart, and she was noticeably taller than he is. She did get the part, got a Tony nomination for it, and Hollywood came calling.

What if she didn't get the part? Would the world have changed?

Well, yes and no. Keaton was talented enough that she would have gotten another part in some other play, probably would have received a Tony nomination, and again Hollywood would have come calling. Maybe it would have happened one or two years later, and maybe she would have in other movies than the ones she did. Maybe she wouldn't have done so many Woody Allen films, but maybe she would have been in equally-good or better ones.

Life would have turned out a little different for Diane Keaton, and for Hollywood. But not too different.

Morality and the Free Market

2011-08-15T16:27:00.000-07:00

Check out my latest at the DownsizeDC Foundation. Excerpt:

Even when you're not formally coerced, you might feel compelled to make the exchange for the sake of your own well-being or that of your family. Here are some examples...
Someone takes a low-wage job in lousy conditions to keep from starving
Entrepreneurs sell bags of ice at extraordinarily high prices in an area that has lost power due to a hurricane
A rich man offers a poor man money to donate his kidney to save the life of the rich man's son
A politician pays hush money (blackmail) to a former mistress

Statists intuitively feel empathy for people caught in such circumstances. Supporters of liberty may feel empathy as well. However, they haven't sufficiently articulated why the Statists are still wrong in favoring State control over market forces.

The Assault on Online Privacy

2011-08-12T11:12:00.000-07:00

http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/the-assault-on-online-privacy

QUOTE OF THE DAY: "The bill is mislabeled. This is not protecting children from Internet pornography. It's creating a database for everybody in this country for a lot of other purposes." - Rep. John Conyers

A dangerous bill has been approved by the Republican-controlled House Judiciary Committee that would ELMINIATE your online privacy. That's why I sent a letter to Congress using DownsizeDC.org's Hands Off the Internet Campaign.

I urge you to send a letter. You may borrow from or copy this...

I insist that you oppose HR 1981, the so-called "Protecting Children from Internet Pornographers Act."

The very name of the bill is dishonest and offensive. It misleads the public into thinking the bill gives law enforcement expanded tools to protect children from pedophiles.

But actually, it gives law enforcement broad powers to examine ANYONE's Internet activities, for ANY reason. According to CNET (http://cnet.co/oU5t35):

* It would require commercial Internet providers "to store... customers' names, addresses, phone numbers, credit card numbers, bank account numbers, and temporarily-assigned IP addresses."
* Rep. Zoe Lofgren says this would create "a data bank of every digital act by every American" that would "let us find out where every single American visited Web sites."
* If the law passed, criminals would simply go to libraries or coffeehouses and use the Web anonymously, while law-abiding Americans would have their activities recorded.

In addition...

* ISP's will have to reconfigure their systems to accommodate the data retention requirements -- an expense they will surely pass on to their customers (to you)
* Combing through mostly irrelevant records of innocent Americans is a highly INEFFICIENT form of catching criminals

As Kevin Bankston of the Electronic Frontier Foundation puts it, HR 1981, "would treat every Internet user like a criminal and threaten the online privacy and free speech rights of every American... Such a scheme would be as objectionable to our Founders as the requiring of licenses for printing presses or the banning of anonymous pamphlets." (http://bit.ly/rffep9)

The First and Fourth Amendments guarantee my right to anonymity and to privacy. Both disappear if the government tracks my online activities.

Uphold your oath of office to support and defend the Constitution. Oppose HR 1981!

END LETTER

You can send your letter using DownsizeDC.org's Educate the Powerful System.

DownsizeDC.org is one of 30 organizations that had sent a letter to the House Judiciary Committee concerning HR 1981. You can read that letter here.

And we urge you to share with your friends who are concerned about liberty and privacy. Go to our blog to "like" and "tweet" this message: http://bit.ly/qkBXM3

James Wilson
Policy Research Director
DownsizeDC.org

Are Tax Breaks Really Subsidies?

2011-08-12T11:04:00.000-07:00

Check out my latest at The Downsize DC Foundation. Excerpt:

Should the tax code be simplified to get rid of tax "breaks" for certain kinds of behavior?

Or should those of us who want a smaller State demand MORE tax breaks so that more people can keep more money for themselves?

These questions were asked during the debt ceiling debate on ways to "raise revenue."
The underlying problem is that the State does too much. A government with few and limited functions would have low taxes. Once the State moves from justice/enforcement into the complex areas of social and economic policy, however, the tax code will inevitably grow more complex with it

The Federal Government Has No Credibility

2011-08-09T09:19:00.000-07:00

http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/the-federal-government-has-no-credibility

Quote of the Day: "Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget that the state wants to live at the expense of everyone." Frederic Bastiat

Is silence equal to consent? The incumbent politicians on Capitol Hill sure act as if it is!

You must make it CLEAR to them that you do NOT approve. There are lots of ways to do so. Some are effective; some aren't. Some are economical; most are complex and expensive.

DownsizeDC.org's "Educate the Powerful System" provides everyone with an address a SIMPLE method to withdraw consent. This PROPRIETARY system...

1. Allows you to send a letter to your Rep. and two Senators, simultaneously.
2. Makes sure that those offices know that they're hearing from constituents, which wouldn't be possible with a simple email.
3. Ensures that you are NOT alone. Other people who agree with you, are sending letters on the same issue.

The Downsize DC Team uses this system. You can too! Here are our most recent letters to our "representatives" and we encourage you to copy from us, or better yet, write your own letter...

"A Government With No Credibility Sees Its Credit Rating Lowered"

Read this "Cut Federal Spending" letter by James Wilson on the DownsizeDC.org blog.

S&P downgrade proves Debt Deal was a sham. Tell Congress to make REAL cuts in spending. #DownsizeDC http://bit.ly/qwpx6m
Retweet: http://twitter.com/#!/DDCDispatch/status/100926452425428992

"Poll Shows that Politicians Lack the Consent of the Governed"

Read this "Repeal Obamacare" letter by Perry Willis on the DownsizeDC.org blog.

Americans didn't approve. Still got bailout, Obamacare, and the "debt deal." Make your disapproval CLEAR. #DownsizeDC http://bit.ly/qcljRt
Retweet: http://twitter.com/#!/DDCDispatch/status/100934742060433409

"I'd Be Happy to Leave Afghanistan"

Read this "Get Out of Afghanistan" letter by Jim Babka on the DownsizeDC.org blog.

"If you don't want us, we're happy to leave." - Joe Biden to President Karzai. Make US happy Joe! Leave! #DownsizeDC http://bit.ly/q0K7Hf
Retweet: http://twitter.com/#!/DDCDispatch/status/100939105784954880

Choose one. Choose all. Send your letter(s). Tweet! Withdraw your consent, loud and clear.

And then, be sure to tell your friends about www.DownsizeDC.org

Jim Babka
President
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

Time to Dissolve the Union?

2011-08-08T21:40:00.000-07:00

Check out my latest at The Partial Observer. Excerpt:

[W]hat would happen if the states become independent?

States that go "protectionist" and shut down trade and immigration with other states will fall into poverty, and their crime rates would skyrocket due to smuggling. Indeed, people and businesses in those states would migrate to states with fewer taxes, fewer regulations, and free trade. Even states with few natural resources can, like Hong Kong, become economically wealthy and industrially powerful.

Also, extradition agreements could function between states the same as they do now. Sports leagues could have teams in different independent states, just as they do now in different independent countries.

And most states couldn't afford to be anything but neutral on the world stage. . .

Americans Beg for Mercy in Front of Unelected Bureaucrats

2011-08-04T08:40:00.000-07:00

Quote of the Day: "A note to social engineers of all parties: If you have to protect 3 million people from a brand-new law, it probably wasn’t very well written in the first place." - John Sununu

Did you know that unelected bureaucrats are SELECTIVELY waiving some businesses from following the requirements of Obamacare?

Government by bureaucracy is one of the primary threats to liberty and prosperity. That is why the Write the Laws Act is part of the Downsize DC Agenda.

It is also why I wrote this letter to my Representative and Senators, and encourage you to do the same . . .

I understand that as long as The State exists, citizens will be subject to random judgment calls even by well-meaning government employees. I understand that life can be unfair.

But I was disturbed and angry when I read this article by John Sununu, a former U.S. Senator from New Hampshire: http://articles.boston.com/2011-07-25/bostonglobe/29813533_1_waiver-program-special-treatment-obamacare

According to Sununu . . .

* Department of Health and Human Services regulators had issued waivers exempting 1,400 companies from the harsh effects of Obamacare
* Whereas other companies were denied these exemptions, at the cost of some 150,000 jobs

Not even the Obamacare law granted HHS bureaucrats this arbitrary power. But, in the culture of Washington, D.C., they might plausibly say that the Obamacare law didn't PREVENT them from using this power.

In D.C....

* Elected members of Congress create "laws" which are frequently more or less guidelines
* Unelected bureaucrats enforce, or don't enforce, these "laws" as they see fit, and create regulations on their own

Should honest small business owners be subject to the arbitrary rules of unelected bureaucrats?

Or should Congress write ALL the rules we must live under, and limit the discretion of bureaucrats?

The Write the Laws Act requires that CONGRESS...

* Write all the rules
* Read all the rules
* Debate all the rules
* And vote into law all of the rules that you are required to obey

If you say that you don't have "time" to do all this, then THAT proves to me that you have very little knowledge or expertise in the industry you want to regulate.

Why, then, should I believe that YOU have sufficient knowledge to hire the best unelected "experts" to regulate MY life?

I object, fervently, to the idea that the government should regulate industry, and then dispense special exemptions when it pleases. That is the moral equivalent of begging a King for mercy.

And, I object, vehemently, to the idea that Congress can grant regulatory, coercive powers to unelected bureaucrats in the Executive Branch.

If Congress thinks it can control the economy or regulate my life, then at least it should be honest about it. Write the regulations yourself; as the Constitution requires. Giving broad powers and wide discretion to unelected bureaucrats is the equivalent of giving absolute power to a monarch with whom citizens must beg for mercy or special privilege.

Bureaucratic law-making violates the principles this Republic was founded upon. Repeal Obamacare, and pass the Write the Laws Act!

END LETTER

You can send your letter using DownsizeDC.org's Educate the Powerful System.

Are your friends aware that there's a way to prevent government by special favors -- favors such as these Obamacare waivers? Have they heard of the Write the Laws Act? Please tell them! Share this on Facebook and Twitter: http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/americans-beg-for-mercy-in-front-of-unelected-bureaucrats

James Wilson
Policy Research Director
DownsizeDC.org

VERY URGENT: Congress Rushing 'Deal'

2011-08-01T13:20:00.001-07:00

http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/very-urgent-congress-rushing-deal

Quote of the Day: "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it..." - Former Speaker, now Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi

Nancy said it. Republicans have mocked her endlessly for it. Some of them have even said, "We need to read our bills."

A few of those even pledged to sponsor our Read the Bills Act. But they've been "too busy" to make progress with us.

Instead, the Republican leadership plans to do some really bad things -- in a big damn hurry. If Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, and company have their way, we'll have to wait till the bill is passed to see what's in it.

When it comes to legislation, "Speed kills."

WE NEED MORE TIME TO REVIEW THIS DEAL AND ALL ITS IMPLICATIONS.

And you should demand more time.

Because of the urgency, you need to call.
AND
So that your numbers are counted, and your arguments considered, you must write.

For the writing part, I went to DownsizeDC.org's "Cap the Debt" campaign.

I've sent letters to my reps using this campaign in recent weeks. But the issues at stake have changed, and my representatives need to hear from me now, more than ever. The hard-wired letter begins, "Do NOT raise the debt ceiling." Here are the personal comments I added...

Instead, please introduce DownsizeDC.org's "Read the Bills Act." You can find the legislative text here: http://www.downsizedc.org/rtba-legislation

John Boehner and the Republicans promised, in their 2010 campaign document, "Pledge to America," that they would allow the public sufficient time to read bills before lawmakers voted on them. "We will give all representatives and citizens at least three days to read the bill before a vote," the pledge said.

It is wrong to rush passage this so-called "deal" until there's been time for you to...

* comprehend its details
* receive feedback from your constituents and counselors on how it works
* engage in debate and amend where necessary

It is nearly impossible to do all of that in a mere three days. But we're not even going to get that. The promise will be broken. Typical.

Clearly, Congress needs a law, not an easily dismissible rule, which requires them to provide that kind of time -- seven days would be better. The Read the Bills Act requires it. And it deserves your support, if you really want to "change the culture in Washington."

I'm watching closely. I care deeply about the debt ceiling vote, and I expect you to oppose this plan. And then, I'll be looking for news that you've introduced the Read the Bills Act, without watering it down. I'll know then you really mean your rhetoric, unlike the Republican leadership.

END LETTER

You can use what I wrote, or write your own personal letter using the Educate the Powerful System.

Then, I called. And this is what I said...

Vote NO on the debt ceiling deal, if for no other reason than that legislation should be read and debated IN DETAIL before it gets a vote.

Then, I "tweeted" my "phone script," and I encourage you to do the same!

Jim Babka
President
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

VERY URGENT: Congress Rushing 'Deal'

2011-08-01T13:20:00.000-07:00

http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/very-urgent-congress-rushing-deal

Quote of the Day: "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it..." - Former Speaker, now Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi

Nancy said it. Republicans have mocked her endlessly for it. Some of them have even said, "We need to read our bills."

A few of those even pledged to sponsor our Read the Bills Act. But they've been "too busy" to make progress with us.

When it comes to legislation, "Speed kills."

WE NEED MORE TIME TO REVIEW THIS DEAL AND ALL ITS IMPLICATIONS.

And you should demand more time.

Because of the urgency, you need to call.
AND
So that your numbers are counted, and your arguments considered, you must write.

For the writing part, I went to DownsizeDC.org's "Cap the Debt" campaign.

Instead, please introduce DownsizeDC.org's "Read the Bills Act." You can find the legislative text here: http://www.downsizedc.org/rtba-legislation

John Boehner and the Republicans promised, in their 2010 campaign document, "Pledge to America," that they would allow the public sufficient time to read bills before lawmakers voted on them. "We will give all representatives and citizens at least three days to read the bill before a vote," the pledge said.

It is wrong to rush passage this so-called "deal" until there's been time for you to...

* comprehend its details
* receive feedback from your constituents and counselors on how it works
* engage in debate and amend where necessary

It is nearly impossible to do all of that in a mere three days. But we're not even going to get that. The promise will be broken. Typical.

Clearly, Congress needs a law, not an easily dismissible rule, which requires them to provide that kind of time -- seven days would be better. The Read the Bills Act requires it. And it deserves your support, if you really want to "change the culture in Washington."

I'm watching closely. I care deeply about the debt ceiling vote, and I expect you to oppose this plan. And then, I'll be looking for news that you've introduced the Read the Bills Act, without watering it down. I'll know then you really mean your rhetoric, unlike the Republican leadership.

END LETTER

You can use what I wrote, or write your own personal letter using the Educate the Powerful System.

Then, I called. And this is what I said...

Vote NO on the debt ceiling deal, if for no other reason than that legislation should be read and debated IN DETAIL before it gets a vote.

Then, I "tweeted" my "phone script," and I encourage you to do the same!

Jim Babka
President
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

Who's to Blame for The Debt Ceiling Mess?

2011-07-29T09:59:00.000-07:00

Check out my latest at the Downsize DC Foundation. Excerpt:

First, the facts:

In February, 2010, the Democratic-controlled Congress raised the debt ceiling to a level expected to be reached in the Spring or Summer of 2011
When they lost the November elections, largely due to the anti-spending Tea Party, it was clear they would lose the power to raise the debt ceiling again
They had the entire lame-duck session to raise the debt ceiling until 2013 or longer, or abolish it altogether
They did not

Every large organization employs analysts to think down the road. For instance, when NFL teams sign players to long-term contracts, they account not only for salary cap implications of the current season, but also for future seasons.

Wasn't there ONE Democratic consultant thinking down the road? Wasn't there anyone smart enough to alert President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Reid, and House Speaker Pelosi them that they'd lose leverage on the debt issue?

And why aren't Republican leaders calling the Democrats on this? Why aren't they saying that if Democrats really thought it was important to raise the debt ceiling further, they could have done so when they had the chance? Why are Republicans actually allowing themselves to be blamed for this mess?

I Buy Local, But Don't Force Others To Do So

2011-07-27T16:07:00.001-07:00

This is another post from me for the Downsize DC Foundation. Excerpt:

I know an elderly couple who retired to a village where they have numerous friends. It is relatively close to immediate and extended family. But the grocery store in town closed. The closest one is now a 15-minute drive each way. If a can of tomato soup is needed in a recipe, suddenly dinner preparation is an ordeal. They said they would never have moved to that town if it didn't have a grocery store.
There is a reason the local grocer went belly-up. Most residents already commute to other nearby towns and cities. The supermarkets there are able to get better deals from wholesalers and pass those lower prices on to customers. That makes solid "economic" sense in terms of monetary savings. However, even these residents lose the convenience of having the store there for last-minute purchases.

Ron Paul Discusses Gold and the Fed on the Kudlow Report

2011-07-26T21:31:00.000-07:00

This is my latest Dispatch for DownsizeDC.org. Excerpt:

The reason people buy gold is because it is a hedge against MONETARY INFLATION. Which means . . .

Gold is the money that doesn't inflate.

Which means . . .

Gold is the REAL money.

When people see that their dollars aren't buying as much as they used to, and their incomes and savings aren't keeping up with inflation, they buy gold. That's because, over time, a unit of gold INCREASES in purchasing power, while the dollar buys less and less.

Violence as Myth

2011-07-26T18:03:00.000-07:00

Check out my latest at The Partial Observer. Excerpt:

With the loosening of standards in the late 1960's and the introduction of the MPAA system, we began to see more instances of violence, and more graphic violence, in movies and television. Some of it has some merit; some of it makes me cringe. And yet no fictionalized violence compares to the other kind of violence we rarely see live, but often see reported on television. This is Violence as Myth.

Nations Don't Have Economies

2011-07-25T06:00:00.000-07:00

Check out my latest at the Downsize DC Foundation. Excerpt:

Why are economic arguments based on what best increases national output? If people say, "This policy won't work," what they mean is that they think it won't increase the nation's GDP.

They object to...

policies that might lead to lower tax revenue.
free markets if freedom might lead to Americans losing their jobs to foreigners -- as if foreigners don't matter or are "less equal" than Americans.

The Separation of Money and State

2011-07-23T16:52:00.001-07:00

Check out my latest at the Downsize DC Foundation. Excerpt:

Interestingly, Hayek was skeptical that gold would prevail as the standard form of money in a free-market system. Until the 20th century, gold was the preferred form of money of rulers, and brilliant free-market economists such as Hayek's mentor Ludwig von Mises assumed a gold standard as a matter of course.

But is what the rulers want necessarily what the public would prefer?

http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/cut-cap-and-balance-means-leviathan-state-forever

2011-07-19T10:36:00.000-07:00

http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/cut-cap-and-balance-means-leviathan-state-forever

Which do you value more? ...smaller government or a balanced budget?

If we refuse to raise the debt ceiling, we get BOTH.

NEITHER party on Capitol Hill wants that, because a smaller State means less power for them.

That's why the Republicans have a scheme to extend the debt limit by $2.4 trillion, provided that Congress passes a Constitutional Amendment that . . .

* requires a balanced budget
* limits federal spending to 18% of GDP (that is, the Gross Domestic Product -- the overall size of the economy)

This 18% of GDP is only MARGINALLY smaller than what has been the traditional size of government in the post-World War II era, and much LARGER than what it was when citizens of our nation gave the world the telegraph, light bulb, and airplane.

A federal government the size of 18% of the economy is NOT what I signed on for when I became a small-government activist. 18% is too big... MUCH too big!

The only good thing about this is that Democrats will probably reject it, leading to a stalemate, which means the Debt Ceiling would stay where it is.

Leaving the debt limit where it is...

* would IMMEDIATELY balance the budget...
* would force deep spending cuts -- which means a Downsized DC...
* but, because there's still revenue coming it, it wouldn't force the feds to skip troop pay, Social Security, Medicare, or interest payments, unless...

...someone, like the President, wanted to play politics by cutting off their checks.

That's why I sent a letter to my Representative and Senators, telling them to oppose ANY increase in the debt ceiling.

You may borrow from or copy this letter . . .

I support a balanced budget. But I oppose the "Cut, Cap, and Balance" plan offered by Republicans because it raises the debt limit by $2.4 trillion. I also don't think I want it etched in Constitutional stone that the Federal State will be 18% of the national economy. That's too big.

In the post-WWII era, spending has generally hovered around 20% of GDP. http://bit.ly/oAMrH4

So, in essence, this amendment says that the Federal State should be ONLY 10% smaller than it has been during most of our lifetimes.

And given how the rest of the Constitution is followed, what so-called "unintended consequences" will follow the ratification of this amendment. Will...

* estimates of GDP will be manipulated by politicians in the executive and legislative branches?
* Congress would be motivated to spend UP to 18% of GDP, instead of being pressured to spend LESS?

I don't think a Balanced Budget Amendment should have a specific GDP percentage.

The 18% GDP cap may require minor spending cuts here and there, but it won't...

* Force the Pentagon to have a "Defense" budget as opposed to a "World Police" budget
* Compel fundamental reforms or phase-outs of unconstitutional programs like Medicare, which has made medical care MORE expensive, even for the elderly
* Leave most powers to the states or individuals, as the Ninth and Tenth Amendment requires

You can get a balanced budget IMMEDIATELY by refusing to raise the debt ceiling, thus requiring spending cuts across the board.

DON'T compromise. DON'T negotiate. Simply, DON'T raise the debt limit! Instead...

* Reform the tax code so that it's easier to do business in the USA
* Downsize the Pentagon
* Deregulate American industry
* De-criminalize voluntary behavior
* Transfer most of what you do to the states and the people

This will all make the people more prosperous and freer. DON'T raise the debt limit. Instead, cut spending and regulation!

END LETTER

You may send your letter using DownsizeDC.org's Educate the Powerful System.

Do you think your friends are aware that the Republicans want to have Big Government enshrined in the Constitution with a Balanced Budget Amendment that fixes federal spending at a whopping 18% of GDP?

Please tell them! Share this on Facebook and Twitter.

James Wilson
Policy Research Director
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

Why Fight for Qadhafi?

2011-07-19T10:34:00.000-07:00

Check out my latest at The Partial Observer. Excerpt:

Most people want to do the "right" thing, but find themselves in a world with no good options. Two people who choose differently may find themselves on the opposite side of a shooting war.

Who am I to say who chose wrongly, if I've never walked in their shoes?

Bill James, Yao Ming, Casey Anthony, War, Famine, and More

2011-07-12T20:57:00.000-07:00

Just to get you all caught up on my day . . .

Prohibition and the Health Care Cost Argument

2011-07-07T09:11:00.000-07:00

Check out my latest at the Downsize DC Foundation. Excerpt:

From seat belt laws, to smoking bans, to prohibition of (some) drugs, prohibitionists have led their propaganda campaigns against personal freedom with a "health care cost" argument. "Society" (by which they mean, taxpayers) will bear the health care costs from vehicle injuries, diseases from second-hand smoke, and addiction.

And now, they are extending their successful agitprop campaigns to salty, sugary, or fatty foods -- that is, all the foods you like!

But make no mistake: Their muckraking logic could extend to nearly EVERY facet of your life. What isn't healthy for you should be regulated or banned, because "society" will have to pay for your healthcare costs.

The prohibitionists have it exactly backwards...

The health care costs of supposedly "irresponsible" behavior isn't a reason to ban the behavior, it is a reason to get the government to stop paying for health care.

The Time I Committed Election Fraud

2011-07-05T22:06:00.000-07:00

Check out my latest at the Partial Observer. A true story, but I rigged it in favor of the candidate I opposed, and learned a lot about immigration and citizenship in the process.

Between God and Man

2011-06-23T05:06:00.000-07:00

Check out my latest at the Partial Observer. Excerpt:

Whether it's economic redistribution, the jailing or forced "rehabilitation" of the nonviolent, or forced taxation to build war machines, people of "faith" seem to place their real faith in the State, rather than in their God. And because the State is nothing but a monopoly of the use of force, faith in the State means faith in violence.

The Jonathan Edwards Rule, Revised

2011-06-15T08:06:00.000-07:00

Check out my latest at The Partial Observer. Excerpt:

In July, 2009, I wrote of The Jonathan Edwards Rule. Named after the singer-songwriter who penned the early 1970's hit "Sunshine," the rule is a line from that song:

"He can't even run his own life, I'll be damned if he'll run mine."

At the time, the adulterous affair of South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford was in the news.

These days, it is Representative Anthony Weiner's communications with young women over Twitter that is causing a ruckus.

Reactionary Progressives

2011-06-09T09:24:00.000-07:00

Check out my latest at The Partial Observer. Excerpt:

No one seems to be more conservative and backward-looking than the modern day, self-described "progressive." Their modes of thought and rhetoric reflects what they themselves would call a reactionary conservatism if spotted in others. Today I will explore three of these modes:

1. Argument by Appeals to Authority

2. Complete lack of imagination when it comes to social change

3. A profound intellectual inconsistency

Terror and Endless War

2011-06-06T11:34:00.001-07:00

Check out my latest pieces from DownsizeDC.org and the Downsize DC Foundation:

Defending Scottie Pippen

2011-05-31T15:15:00.000-07:00

Check out my latest at The Partial Observer. Excerpt:

Last Friday, ex-Bulls star and former teammate of Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen, suggested that LeBron James may be the greatest basketball player of all time.

This provoked a media frenzy, in which Pippen was criticized relentlessly. He subsequently backtracked and clarified that James has the potential to be as great as Jordan.

I don't know enough about basketball to agree or disagree with what Pippen initially said.

I did listen to it live and was surprised to hear Pippen's remarks. But even at the time I appreciated what Pippen meant, even if he now regrets his phraseology.

Principles and Parties

2011-05-24T17:00:00.000-07:00

Check out my latest: Principles and Parties. Excerpt:

Party politics is not my favored method to spread the ideas of liberty, and it's not the only method. But it is the favored method in America today, and I understand why many people get involved with it.

I would prefer that the only means be bring about liberty is pure, non-political persuasion.

Maybe that's possible, but I haven't seen it yet.

Alternatives to Obama

2011-05-17T17:49:00.000-07:00

Check out my latest: The Partial Observer - Alternatives to Obama

Excerpt:

The old coalition in the GOP of social conservatives, neoconservative hawks, and libertarians is fractured. Paul and Johnson personify this, as I imagine most Republicans would rather re-elect Obama rather than either men. But that is exactly why they are the only alternatives to Obama.

How Government Increases Environmental Risks

2011-05-10T09:06:00.000-07:00

Check out my latest at The Partial Observer. Excerpt:

A Canadian company wants to build an underground oil pipeline from Alberta to Texas that will cross through the Ogallala Aquifer, one of the largest aquifers in the world. A leak there could spill in the Platte and eventually Missouri and Mississippi rivers. And, a leak in such a remote place may take days to detect and even more days to get a crew in to repair it.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has the final say on whether construction of the pipeline may go forward.

Osama Bin Laden and the 9-11 Exception

2011-05-05T07:52:00.000-07:00

Check out my latest at the Partial Observer. Excerpt:

The most amazing aspect of this is how, in the post-9/11 world, so many are willing to believe the President (whoever he is) on issues of "national security" and terrorism. They will claim the President is personally unethical and lies all the time, but, when a "national security" incident related to 9/11 comes up, they will believe the President's claims.

I don't recall this before 9/11. Most wars had vocal critics and strong partisan opposition. Today, Presidents get a bi-partisan free pass.

Oswald and Synchronicity

2011-04-26T09:35:00.000-07:00

Check out my latest at The Partial Observer. Excerpt:

An old proverb says, "Be careful what you wish for; you just might get it."

"The Prankster and the Conspiracy," Adam Gorightly's biography of Kerry Thornley, prompts a similar thought: "Be careful what you joke about: the joke may be on you."

Atlas Shrugs, and So Do I

2011-04-19T07:05:00.000-07:00

Check out my latest at The Partial Observer. Excerpt:

You would think that a novel so popular would have the major Hollywood studios bidding up the asking price for the rights. But it didn't happen with Left Behind. And it didn't happen with Atlas Shrugged. If Big Hollywood thought they could make a profit with either, they would have made either movie. Hollywood must have decided that while both novels were popular for niche audiences, neither had mass appeal.

And they aren't shy about making liberty-centered movies. Think about the three most successful franchises:

Star Wars
Lord of the Rings
Harry Potter

Each of them provides a powerful message of liberty. But liberty is not the message the audience receives. Instead, they see "good vs. evil" and, since the audience member thinks of himself as a good guy, he's still willing to use State force to punish anything he thinks is evil.

When people go to movies, they're not hoping to be converted to a religion, let alone an ideology, and they're generally NOT thinking about opening their minds.

Do Me a Favor, Comment on this Post

2011-04-13T10:22:00.000-07:00

I have been alerted to a potential problem, and I hope you can help me out.

Please post anything in the comments section of this post. Brief or long. Lots of links or none. Multiple times or once. I don't want to take up much of your time, so if you post something long, I'm not suggesting you write something original here. In fact, I'd advise against it, because what I want to find out is if what you post will actually appear on the blog. So I'd advise pasting stuff you've already written previously.

It would be additionally helpful, if you comment more than once, that with your first comment you select as "Comment As," your current blog account or Google ID (or Anonymous), and the second time you comment you select as "Comment As" your Name/URL.

Whatever you do, I should get an email notification that your comment has been posted. What I need to find out is whether it actually does get posted.

Thanks for your help!

Firefly and Artificial Scarcity

2011-04-12T07:01:00.001-07:00

Check out my latest at The Partial Observer. Excerpt:

But we don't have a free market, and the central problem is power. Second-rate minds who crave power go into politics. First-rate minds who crave power go into business and finance. Together, they exact tribute from the people: the politician by collecting taxes, the financier by collecting debts and interest. Then they set up social programs and "philanthropic" foundations to make the people dependent on them. Together, they make laws and regulations that make it nearly impossible for individuals to escape their systems of control.

Together, they have created a world of scarcity on a planet of abundance.

Can You Afford Wars of Choice?

2011-04-10T17:09:00.000-07:00

Check out my latest at The Downsize DC Foundation. Excerpt:

Our biggest "competitor," China, spends barely 1/7 of our military budget, and less than half in terms of GDP. China and India combined -- with one-third of the world's population - spend less on their military than Britain and France combined, which is less than a quarter of what the U.S. spends.

In fact, the United States accounts for 48% of the entire world's military spending!

While other countries may have large armies - a man with a gun is cheaper than the sophisticated hardware U.S. politicians like to buy -- they do NOT have the means to impose their will on other countries. They can provide manpower and equipment for auxiliary roles to support U.S.-led wars, or for UN peace-keeping missions, but they lack the ability to wage Wars of Choice on other countries. They can't afford it. Well . . .

We Americans must now realize that we can't afford it either.

Guest Response to "Why I Don't Shun Or Boycott"

2011-04-09T13:14:00.000-07:00

Kitty Antonik Wakfer has responded to my post "Why I Don't Shun or Boycott.". This is posted with her consent:

I see this as an example more of how the author appears not to care with whom he associates in a business sense, though most likely James is selective re. who and to what degree he associates in non-business ($ exchanging) situations. However, the word "morality" is a very loaded word and unless specifically defined can be used to convey a wide variance of ideas.

If an individual determines - and this properly needs to be more than reading/hearing some rumor - that a business owner has acted in some way that is in opposition to the individual's fundamental values, then the individual is not consistent with those values if s/he continues to voluntarily interact at all with that business owner. If s/he has been on speaking terms w/ that business owner, then personal questioning is in order and logical persuasion to change if there is truly found to be opposing values. However, if the business owner continues in whatever practices are fundamentally objectionable to (some) others, then those who object are fundamentally consistent to shun him/her (hir). For those who object but continue association, they are hypocritical - and short-range thinkers, pragmatic.

In regard to this poorly constructed example, being open about one's ideas and practices are more of a protection then they are an impediment. With the Internet it allows an individual to make this known to a vast audience (and over time) enabling others to become and stay informed about hir. I wrote about this in some detail in "Anonymity - Hazard, Not Protection; Limitation, not Enhancement", over 6 years ago.

"Would you want to be shunned or boycotted because of how people perceived your personal life, your beliefs, or your business practices?"

There is no way that someone can arrange that "[l]ies are spread about [my] personal life and views, destroying [my] reputation." True, someone could publish something that is false, and some few people might actually believe it. And those who do (even after questioning me publicly), I have no value for them since they obviously are so easily persuaded to conclude something false or we are diametrically opposed on fundamental values, though this last would be apparent already. But "destroy my reputation"?? No way. And the same is true for anyone if s/he has been open about hir ideas and actions (to the degree that government enforcers will not make use of the information to do physical harm).

As for specific fairly recent events where I (and husband Paul Wakfer) have shunned businesses, the WikiLeaks situation resulted in 4. We canceled accounts with PayPal and Amazon and we put our VISA and MasterCard credit cards on emergency usage only. These are explained/discussed in "Libertarians Need less Strategy -- and more Principle!" and "Are Principles Unaffordable?"

We also ceased shopping at WalMart after formal announcement of it partnering with Dept of Homeland Security in the government program, "If You See Something, Say Something" - "checkout video screens...urging people to take an active role in ensuring the safety and security of our nation and our communities." http://walmartstores.com/pressroom/news/10493.aspx

Our actions alone will not make a noticeable ripple in the decisions of these companies. But if hundreds of thousands of USers (?some millions?) who disagree with the practices of these companies also withdrew their association (ceased doing business) and made it publicly clear why they were doing so, the effects on those companies would not be ones easily ignored by management.

For the vast majority of businesses with which I deal, I know very little of the owners and even when some few do espouse religious beliefs (I and Paul are atheists), as long as they do not proselytize they are not interfering with my time. As long as they continue to provide good service/products at prices that we think are a good trade of our $value, and do not act as the companies above have done, we will continue as customers. And I and Paul will choose new businesses for services/products in the same manner - which we did on an application offer by Discover Card, recently started to be used regularly.

Intellectual Property, Contract, and Conscience

2011-04-05T20:01:00.000-07:00

I recall chemical detergents and other products having on their back label something like: "It is a violation of federal law to use this product in ways that do not follow these directions."

Now imagine we live in a free-market society, where there are no laws against victimless behavior, and therefore, there are no laws against misusing products (unless they're used as a weapon or poison against others).

Would the producer of a product have the right to dictate the terms of use of the product on the purchaser? For instance, instead of of "It is a violation of federal law . . ." warning on the label, what if there's is, instead, something like this . . .

"It is a violation of the terms of sale of this product to use it in any way other than as directed. If you are unwilling to abide by the these directions, return this product, unopened and unused, for a full refund. Failure to abide by these terms absolves the manufacturer and seller of this product of any liability. It also gives the manufacturer or seller sufficient grounds to refuse any future sales to you. If your failure to use the product as directed reflects poorly on the manufacture or seller, they may demand that you return the the product, or the remaining contents thereof, without compensation."

Would this be enforceable? Probably not. But it would protect the manufacturer from liability. For instance, if the directions said to "Keep out of reach of children, and deny them access" but a child injures himself or others with the product, the parents couldn't sue the manufacturer. Or, if the directions say to spray the cleaning liquid two feet away from the surface, and you spray from six inches away and the the liquid splashes back into your eye, you can't claim the product was dangerous.

You may violate the directions all you want in your personal use of it, and maybe nobody will get hurt or find out. But if it means causing injury to yourself or others, then neither you nor others you injure have anyone but you to blame.

It seems to me that contractual law should allow the seller of the product to dictate any terms to the purchaser. After all, the purchaser isn't compelled to buy. If the terms of use and/or directions are plainly and prominently listed (such as, on the unopened package of the product on the store shelf, or in a terms of use agreement posted BEFORE sale on an e-product) then the seller should be free to dictate any terms she wants.

Perhaps in many cases the terms are not enforceable, in that it would be too easy for the buyer to violate the terms of sale and get away with it. But it is useful to lay out the terms anyway. The terms of sale may be:

Do not use this product except as directed
Do not reverse-engineer and replicate this new product/invention for resale
Do not copy and redistribute this book/recording/movie

And maybe they're not enforceable much of the time. But at least the manufacturer/creator can derive some psychical/spiritual value from dictating the terms of sale. They can enjoy the fact that honorable people use the product honorably.

And, buyers who misuse the product or otherwise violate the terms of sale will know they are acting dishonorably. Their very excuses for violating the terms of sale, attempting to discredit the sellers, actually prove their own dishonor.

They will say something like, "The terms of sale are unreasonable," and justify themselves by saying things like:

After I buy it, it should be entirely up to me how I use the product
The seller must be greedy for wanting to protect his "intellectual property," especially since "intellectual property" doesn't exist
The seller must be a moralistic busy-body for telling me what I can or can't do with the product
The seller must understand that these terms and conditions are virtually unenforceable, so I might as well ignore them

To summarize all these excuses: It's okay to violate a contract if I think I can get away with it.

We've seen that excuse since the beginning of time. People make a vow of fidelity with wedding vows, then break the vow when they think they can get away with it, then rationalize their behavior by saying it's unreasonable to expect a person to have sex with just one other person for the rest of life, and that besides, the spouse is a terrible person.

Perhaps it is unreasonable to have sex with just one person, and maybe the spouse is a terrible person, but you should have thought those things through before taking the wedding vows.

The mere violation of a contract, vow, or any other kind of promise, won't always lead to a legal judgment of financial compensation on behalf of the person who was "wronged" by the broken promise. Often, there aren't any tangible damages, only mere violations of trust and hurt feelings. And even when compensation might be expected, they are almost impossible to know: how do you calculate "lost earnings?"

In the case of "Intellectual Property" (IP) such as patents and copyrights, some libertarians say they don't exist, and others say they're essential. Sheldon Richman makes a strong case for the former side, and Stephan Kinsella and others have done a lot of work on behalf of that position, whereas J. Neil Schulman makes a moving case for the IP side - which is particularly strong since he eschews State-enforcement.

To me, "intellectual property" isn't really the issue at all. It is, rather, about contracts. Creators, inventors, manufacturers, and retail sellers all have the right to set their own terms of sale, including bans on replication or redistribution, and the buyers are then obliged to obey the terms of the contract. If they dislike the terms, they shouldn't buy.

The problem is that it seems almost impossible to police or prevent such contract violations, and no one would want to live in a society where they CAN be effectively policed, because that would mean giving up a lot of privacy and freedom.

I don't think there's a good answer in libertarian theory. I think the answer lies in being who you want to be:

1. Do you want to be the kind of person who keeps your promises, including obeying the terms of sale of the things you purchase -- or would you rather break your promises when you can get away with it, and pray that others don't do the same to you?

2. Do you want to be the kind of person who encourages the creators and inventors of society by respecting their wishes as to how their work is distributed, or would you rather take them for granted, have them go unrewarded, and pray that Atlas doesn't Shrug?

The issue of "Intellectual Property" is less a matter of libertarian theoretical concepts of "property" and "ownership," and more a matter of plain decency and conscience.

Obama's Forgotten Value

2011-04-05T09:18:00.000-07:00

Check out my latest at the Partial Observer. Excerpt:

I missed the news about the Koran-burning in Florida. Evidently, it occurred in Florida a couple of weeks ago.(Originally, the pastor behind the idea has scheduled to do it last September 11 but chose not to in the face of a media storm.)

In response, there have been deadly protests in Afghanistan, including the killing of some United Nations employees working there.

It could well be that American troops might be put in greater danger because of this.

This echoes the deadly protests from five years ago throughout the Muslim World in response to Danish newspaper cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed.

And it says something about the general futility of U.S. military interventions in the Muslim world. Democracy of some sort may gets a firm foothold over there, but freedom and human rights, as Westerners understand them, probably will not.

Why I Don't Shun or Boycott

2011-04-03T18:07:00.000-07:00

Imagine Adam and Bob both sell widgets, in a society where widgets are a must-have product. Adam sells $5 widgets; Bob sells $10 widgets. Lies are spread about Bob's personal life and views, destroying his reputation. Everyone who prefers Bob's high-end, better widgets decide they'd rather purchase Adam's cheap widgets than continue to do business with Bob. Bob is ruined. Then the public finds out that the information about Bob was lies. They weren't even spread by Adam, but by Carl, who is broke and gets his entertainment through perverse delights such as defaming people like Bob. As a result of the slanders against Bob . . .

Adam doubles his business and more than doubles his profits

Carl gets his laughs

Meanwhile . . .

Bob loses everything

Bob's former customers do not enjoy his superior widgets

Now, who is to blame for Bob losing everything?

Adam isn't at fault, even though he has all the profits that would have gone to Bob.

Adam shouldn't be forced to compensate Bob, because he did nothing wrong. And Carl, who is broke, can't compensate Bob.

So who are the people who ruined Bob?

The people, his former customers, who judged him for things that had nothing to do with the widgets.

If you're in jail, I wouldn't be able to do business with you anyway. If you're not in jail, why should I let things that have nothing to do with making a deal, keep me from making a deal?

I have heard it said that shunning and boycotts is a superior way to enforce ethical standards in a libertarian or anarchist society. For instance, perhaps the business-owner is strongly suspected to have sexist and racist policies, or exploits foreign labor. The proper method is shunning or boycott. (The difference I make between the two is, for instance, last year if you were upset about the Gulf oil spill: if you avoided the BP gas station and there was another gas station on the next block, you shun BP; if you avoid the BP station and the next gas station is 30 miles away, you're BOYCOTTING BP; boycotts involve an actual sacrifice of some sort.)

To be sure, shuns and boycotts are better than the Regulatory-Police State.

But here's something else to think about: Maybe things about the personal life of the widget-maker, or even the businesses practices of the the widget-maker, might even seem to be true on the surface. And yet if they're not being obvious about it, such as putting up signs saying "Blacks need not apply," how do you know they're in the wrong? Sure, if such a sign existed, I would shun the establishment. But you can be sure that no one's going to be that obvious about it. And, by definition, when things aren't obvious, there is room for doubt.

The economist Friedrich Hayek is famous for pointing out that governmental central banks will always lack enough information about the economy to determine the suppy of money or allocate it correctly.

Equally so, you don't really know what's going on with your neighbor's widget business. You may think you know a lot about it, but rarely do you know for certain. Maybe he is actually improving the lives of people that YOU, with incomplete information, think he is exploiting. Maybe his hiring and firing decisions, once you know the fuller context, make more sense than you realize.

Would you want to be shunned or boycotted because of how people perceived your personal life, your beliefs, or your business practices?

I certainly wouldn't. The shun/boycott route for enforcing morality seems to smack of too much division and condemnation from people who have insufficient information to judge.

A better route might be to foster virtues such as humility, grace, honor, and good manners. Otherwise known as, Mind Your Own Business. Try to be the person you want to be, rather than look for the flaws in others.

Official Stories and Blowback

2011-03-31T16:20:00.000-07:00

My latest at the Downsize DC Foundation. Excerpt:

The Official Stories of both 9/11 and JFK illustrate the futility of an interventionist U.S. foreign policy. If we didn't meddle in the Middle East, Osama wouldn't have had any reason to target U.S. citizens in terror attacks. If the U.S. didn't relentlessly harass Cuba, Oswald wouldn't have targeted JFK.

The JFK Assassination was blowback.

And we see "blowback" in domestic policy as well.

Abolish the Popular Vote

2011-03-29T10:11:00.001-07:00

My latest at the Partial Observer, where I argue that the Electoral College isn't the problem.

Max Schmeling, James Harrison, and Me

2011-03-22T10:06:00.000-07:00

Check out my latest at The Partial Observer. Excerpt:

[I was reminded] of a dream a friend told me about years ago, when George W. Bush was still President.
In the dream, Bush would keep showing up in various places and would try to be polite and friendly. But, my friend just wanted to avoid him.

I certainly feel that way with just about any past President, as well as the current one.
I don't want to be photographed with war criminals.

College Football Scandals

2011-03-15T08:01:00.002-07:00

Check out my latest at The Partial Observer. Excerpt:

And such scandals are inevitable. The NCAA may have many faults, but there is a reason it makes and enforces the rules.If it is important to the colleges that their athletes be viewed as amateurs, and apparently it is, a process must be in place to ensure accountability.
But the underlying problem is conceptual. It never made sense to integrate Sport and School in the first place.

From the Partial Observer and Downsize DC

2011-03-08T11:06:00.000-08:00

My latest at the Partial Observer: The Big Event:

Even after the Cold War ended and the threat of nuclear war subsided, these fears and hopes persisted. A disaster beginning in the year 2000 was predicted. Some kind of major change is expected by many in 2012.

Our heads may be telling us that, despite natural disasters and political/financial blunders, that life is actually getting better for more and more people of the world, and has been for decades.

But we may often feel that this won't continue, that catastrophe is in our near future. I certainly do. I can't predict it. I can't rationalize the feeling.

And from Downsize DC: Should You Pay for Corruption and Incompetence?

[A]ll the extra spending at the state and local level seems to be buying you more corruption, more incompetence, and more abuse . . .
* In Chicago, expensive surveillance cameras record your activities, but it's ILLEGAL for you to video-record incidents of police brutality
* In Rosa Parks' old neighborhood, the city of Montgomery, AL is bulldozing the homes of African-Americans without their consent, and without due process, while making the victims pay for it!
* Michigan is protecting massage practitioners from new competition, making it a felony to practice without a license
* In Cleveland it takes 18 months for a business to cut through red tape in order to expand
* Wisconsin (and other states) have negotiated with public servant unions using money it doesn't have

And you could probably list your own examples.

An Ironically Proud Day to Be an American

2011-03-02T17:40:00.000-08:00

These are my initial reactions to the Westboro decision. I haven't studied the reach or all the implications of the Court's ruling.

Today, I am ironically proud to be an American. I am celebrating because the Bad Guys won.

The Bad Guys, of course, are from Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, KS. This fringe cult is a unique Church indeed . . .

Its hatred of gays shocks even the Christian Right
Its anti-patriotism shocks even the Left

Nearly everyone who's ever heard of this church is appalled by what it does.

Its members celebrate the death of U.S. servicemen who died in our overseas wars. They believe this is a sign that God is punishing the U.S. for tolerating homosexuality.

They go around the country and stage "protests" near the funerals of fallen soldiers, coming as close as local laws allow.

Their presence inflicts deep emotional pain on the families and friends of the dead.

In fact, one father sued them for inflicting emotional distress. The case made it to the Supreme Court, which defended Westboro's free speech rights 8-1, with only Justice Alito dissenting.

Although I'm not a lawyer and have not studied the jurisdictional issues and other nuances of the case, I have breathed a sigh of relief.

And NOT because I agree with Westboro. Far from it. I believe that what goes on between consenting adults in their own homes is nobody else's business.

Furthermore, I disagree with the U.S. occupations in both Afghanistan and Iraq (and virtually everywhere else in the world), which makes deaths resulting from those occupations a cause for more sadness, not gloating.

The reason I breathe a sigh of relief is that the Supreme Court still took the side of the most unpopular defendant imaginable. Just as it did two decades ago in two different flag desecration cases. Just as it did three decades ago when it allowed the Ku Klux Klan to march in heavily-Jewish Skokie, IL.

The difference between then and now is the gradual changes in our culture. Although the term "politically incorrect" has been so over-used as to become a cliche, there is a real phenomenon behind it: over the past two decades, speech codes on college campuses have had a chilling effect. Any statement or gesture that can be interpreted as "offensive" or even just "insensitive" can land a faculty member or student before a campus tribunal.

That Political Correctness persists on college campuses is shameful.

It would have been even worse for the Supreme Court to make "political correctness" the law of the land . . . :

If the Supreme Court had barred the Klan march in Skokie that would have opened the door to banning other unpopular views in other places.
If the Supreme Court allowed for Flag desecration to be criminalized, that could have opened the door for government to protect other national or local symbols from "desecration"
And then governments would have sought to censor other activities that it deems too "offensive"

The people, especially those who hold unpopular beliefs, would have been in a position of legal uncertainty -- unsure if their forms of expression would be tolerated at all. If they weren't censored directly, they might have censored themselves to avoid trouble.

And the public would have been the worse off for it. Just because a belief is unpopular doesn't mean it isn't true -- and if it's not wholly true, at least it may provide insights that broaden public understanding.

The Westboro case may make the issue more stark. The issue wasn't whether the government would prosecute for offensive speech, but whether another private party can sue for "emotional distress" caused by speech.

This would have been EVEN MORE chilling to ALL speech. Consider . . .

Perhaps you march without a permit, or "desecrate" a national symbol, and you get charged for a misdemeanor. Although it's not right, you might be able to handle it, and take pride in your civil disodience.

But what if what you say or do is tolerated by the authorities, but subject to an $11 million lawsuit if it "offends" someone else.

Now THAT'S a chilling effect!

Imagine you are an editor of a newspaper, and your editorial cartoonist draws the image of a sacred religious figure in a derogatory light; should offended readers who are members of that religion get to sue you and the cartoonist?
Imagine you want to build a religious center on private property, but other people in your neighborhood blame members of this religion for a recent tragedy in the neighborhood; should they be able to sue to keep you from building this center on your own property?
Imagine you hold the "traditional view" on sexual morality and express your feelings in a public forum; should someone who is offended by your remarks get to sue you?
Or imagine you criticize the "traditional view" on sexuality through mockery, satire, and shocking images; should people offended by your presentation get to sue you?

Thanks to today's decision, it looks like freedom of speech is pretty safe. The Supreme Court upheld the rights of a group reviled by ALL sides. When the question is asked, "Where is the line drawn on freedom of speech," the answer is, "So far away that even Westboro is safe, and if Westboro is safe, YOU have nothing to worry about."

Most courts in the English-speaking world and of Europe would not have upheld freedom of speech in this case. Indeed, in several countries some degree of Political Correctness is the law of the land, where it is even illegal to promote certain conspiracy theories.

To a large degree, however, freedom of speech and freedom of assembly still remains safe in America. I haven't felt this proud and lucky to be an American in a long time.

The Essence of Just War Theory

2011-03-01T10:45:00.000-08:00

Check out my latest at the Partial Observer. Excerpt:

If more people adopted the Just War Tradition, we would almost definitely have fewer wars.

That said, perhaps even Just War Theory, while simple in principle, is too complicated in practice.

The question I would ask myself is, when wouldI go to war?

There is one plain answer: when the alternative is starvation or certain death for me and my family. I'd fight a war to survive.

Facebook's 420

2011-02-24T08:31:00.000-08:00

I haven't posted at Independent Country very much recently, aside from linking to my writings at other places. And even then, I haven't done a stellar job of it.

Part of the reason is I'm busy. Another part is that the discipline of Facebook's rule of "make your point in 420 touches of the keyboard" has helped me get my point across. Twitter supposedly makes you even more efficient because you are limited to 140 touches. But with Twitter, the best you can do is make a statement. With Facebook's 420, you can make an argument, or at least provide a more definitive statement.

I've used Facebook to link to my employer, to post youtube clips of some of my favorite songs, and everything in between. But I've also used it to make arguments, while posting in the 420-character "Status" rule. Here are some things I've said, each post separated by paragraph breaks:

Several years ago, I thought that certain taboo behaviors should be legal (because they didn't violate anyone's rights and prohibition doesn't work), but I endorsed free-market forms of condemnation like shunning and boycott. Today, I'm more likely to ENDORSE taboo-breakers, or at least refuse to judge them. When tolerance weaves its way into your mind, sooner or later it weaves its way into your soul.

Everyone knew what was going on LONG before 9/11. Regarding the bomb on the bus in 1994's Speed, Sandra Bullock asks, "What did we do, bomb the guy's country or something?" 9/11 changed nothing.

Saw the new True Grit. Great movie, but anyone who thinks Hailie Steinfeld's role as Mattie is a "supporting" role instead of a "lead" role is a first-class moron. It's better for her and the Academy that she'd lose the Oscar as a lead than win it as a "supporting" actress. She wasn't a supporting actress, she WAS the movie!

Wonders why people who cheered for the Bandit against Smokey in the 1970's now think it's great that Smokey pulls over people for the crime of "driving while looking like a Mexican."

There's no left-right divide. There's no individualist-communitarian divide. There is rather, people who believe in the fundamental goodness of The System and wish only that the right people were in charge, and those who (quoting Brian Doherty), deny that The System "makes any sense, has any justice, or is sustainable."

Governments don't allow military personnel to unionize because that would undermine national defense, an essential government service. Yet governments allow civilians government employees to unionize. That serves as its own proof that their jobs are not essential.

Sure, grampa had a good-paying job for forty years followed by a generous pension. Never mind that any sixth-grader could have done the same work. Americans who complain about "outsourcing" are reactionaries who are living in the past, believing that the USA is #1 and always will be. All markets are global. Deal with it.

I read this somewhere recently, and it cracks me up. Apparently, when German businessmen go to Japan, their hosts sometimes actually say this: "Next time, with no Italians!"

I didn't see it, but I understand that IBM's Watson computer defeated the two greatest Jeopardy contestants of all time. This is NOT a computer solving a chess game like a logic puzzle, this is a computer hearing questions from a human voice with clues often filled with nuance and clever puns. This is a giant leap forward in how computers can interpret and solve problems for us. Bravo to IBM!

With 10 more IQ points I would have graduated at the top of my class. With 20 more IQ points I would have dropped out of college and become a successful entrepreneur. With 30 more IQ points I would have dropped out of high school. With 40 more IQ points I would have become Anonymous.

I can't name a Justin Bieber song. I don't know why he's so popular. BUT, if he does a cover of "Smoking in the Boys Room" I will buy his CD. The people of my generation, who grew up on Motley Crew, have become sanctimonious assholes. It's time to put a stop to our intolerance (which is bankrupting the nation, by the way) by encouraging rebellion in the children.

I'm not "for" or "against" Israel. I want the USA to stay neutral in Israel's disputes and cut off funding for Israel and Israel's neighbors. I don't know how many Americans are "pro-Israel," but I do know they are greedy for forcing ME to fund Israel's defense. You pro-Israel people, write a freaking check and send it to Israel's government, but don't force ME to pay for what YOU want.

Why is federal aid to education, the arts, science, etc. a big deal? It isn't the size of their budgets, which are relatively small. It is because with these subsidies, the federal government is asserting the right to influence and control your mind.

In 1996, the Packer pecking order was GM Ron Wolf, coach Mike Holmgren, Reggie White, then Brett Favre. From 2000-2007, when everyone else was gone, the pecking order was Brett Favre then everyone else. Today, the order is Ted Thompson, Mike McCarthy, and Aaron Rodgers. Here's hoping Rodgers becomes the greatest qb of all time, but never becomes bigger than the franchise.

I won't tolerate whines about "outsourcing to India." I had to call tech support today. I talked to three people, all Indians. After they fixed the problem, I told the last one that they did an outstanding job, and he in return thanked me for my patience (I wonder how many rude American customers they get). I said, "And have a good night . . . I mean, have a good day." He laughed.

Never condemn anyone. There are things I believed 20 years ago that I no longer believe. I wouldn't want to go back in time and kill myself for my wrong beliefs. I wouldn't want that any more than I'd want my future self going back in time and killing me for my beliefs today.

The NFLPA has effectively spun the issue: 1.The NFL's more profitable than ever; 2. Owners want the players to play 2 more games; 3. Players are being asked to take a billion-dollar pay cut; 4. NFL players have more health problems and die younger than other pro athletes. 5. Owners cry poverty without revealing financial statements. Owners: the spin's on you. MAKE YOUR CASE!

I care about the Super Bowl more than I care about the political outcome in Egypt. Does that make me a bad person? Why? The 83 million people in Egypt are no more important to you or me than the people in a region of China or India, of probably a larger population, that none of us have even heard of.

I wonder who is LESS rational, a person who thinks that the government should stop the building of the "Ground Zero Mosque," or someone who genuinely thinks that the federal government should fund the NEA, NEH, and Public Broadcasting. In either case, they will resort to personal attacks on your patriotism or "civic-mindedness," because they have no other argument.

Democrats and Republicans don't care if (mostly non-white) people in foreign lands starve to death through tariffs, sanctions, or war. Then they claim that libertarians have no compassion.

Everyone knows that the FBI spied on and wiretapped Martin Luther King Jr. But if you claim that the FBI (and other federal agencies) is now using powers given to it by the Patriot Act and FISA Amendments Act to spy on and blackmail public figures TODAY, you're a "conspiracy theorist."

You can friend me on Facebook here: http://www.facebook.com/jamesleroywilson

The System Makes No Sense

2011-02-22T08:21:00.000-08:00

Check out my latest at The Partial Observer. Excerpt:

But the economic disaster of the past three years has caused many others to question The System.

They are learning about how the banking system really works, and how the Federal Reserve Board operates in secret. They are questioning bailouts of the fat cats and "stimulus" programs that were nothing but a series of pork-barrel projects.

When they learn that The System relies on money being printed out of thin air, they realize that the System itself "makes no sense."

New Downsize DC Posts

2011-02-16T06:47:00.000-08:00

Recent pieces by me:

From the Downsize DC Foundation: Proof of Government Inefficiency on how the manufacturing sector became more productive with less labor, while government employment has exploded.
Today's action item at DownsizeDC.org: Can Facts Be Heresies? On Hillary's silly statement on the Drug War.

The Changing Conservative Movement

2011-02-15T10:39:00.001-08:00

Check out my latest at The Partial Observer. Excerpt:

They could learn something from the Ron Paul movement itself. It encompasses people from atheist anarchists to Nevada prostitutes to college students to fundamentalist Christians such as 2008 Constitution Party Presidential nominee Chuck Baldwin.

That's inclusive, because the Constitution is inclusive. There is, after all, nothing exclusive by acknowledging that Congress should declare war before it is fought, the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional and is impoverishing the people, that the federal government has no business creating health care, welfare, and education programs, or that it has no business making marriage laws, drug laws, or abortion laws.

Ronald Reagan at 100

2011-02-08T07:08:00.000-08:00

Check out my latest at The Partial Observer. Excerpt:

Reagan's Presidency is an entire generation removed from today; people are graduating from college today who were born after he left office. He is an historical figure, to be studied and, ultimately, judged by historians.
Reagan is no more relevant to us today, than Eisenhower was relevant to the 1980's.

What To Do With Egypt

2011-02-01T05:18:00.000-08:00

Check out my latest at the Partial Observer: What To Do With Egypt

Excerpt:

The only option is to pull out of Egypt altogether. Recall our CIA operatives and other spies. Cut off all military and economic aid. Announce to the Egyptian people, and to the world, that the U.S. will not determine the fate of Egypt, and will not choose sides.

The U.S. should also admit that if it expresses support for one "side" or faction, that such support will automatically be greeted with suspicion by the Egyptian people. The U.S. no longer wants to give the impression that any Egyptian is an American puppet or stooge.

The Democracy Fallacy

2011-01-30T12:00:00.000-08:00

Check out my latest piece at the Downsize DC Foundation. Excerpt:

People who embrace the Democracy Fallacy think that the "right to vote" is the most precious and, perhaps, only right you have. Your vote makes the government legitimate, and the "will of the people" expressed through elections makes the actions of the government legitimate.
And what about the citizens who didn't vote because they found all candidates to be distasteful? "If they don't like the system, they should move to another country!"

Are American Workers Better Off Than They Were Forty Years Ago?

2011-01-27T14:52:00.000-08:00

I discuss this at The Downsize DC Foundation.

What You Can Do For Your Country, and What Your Country Can Do For You

2011-01-27T05:52:00.000-08:00

Check out my latest at the Partial Observer: "The best thing to do for your country is to mind your own business, and the best thing your country can do for you is let you mind your own business."

What is "Income?"

2011-01-18T09:38:00.000-08:00

Check out my latest at The Partial Observer. Excerpt:

A lot of what we call "income" today, however, isn't really income at all.
Think of a superstar baseball player earning $20 million per year in salary. People say, "he makes a good income."

But it isn't income.

It's a salary. The player received the $20 million in exchange for playing baseball.
It was an even trade between the team owner and the player.

Why the Right Was Blamed

2011-01-11T08:31:00.000-08:00

Check out my latest at The Partial Observer. Excerpt:

I admit that, upon hearing the news that a Democratic Congresswoman was shot (and before I heard that it was a much larger spree), my first thought was that it was a far-right nut job.

I suspect even many conservatives suspected the same thing.

Innovation, Inflation, Potato Chips, and You

2011-01-07T09:38:00.000-08:00

I have a post up at the new Downsize DC Foundation site. I could re-post it here, but I encourage you to go to the new site, look around, and increase your knowledge and wisdom.

Producers, Consumers, and The State

2011-01-06T19:07:00.000-08:00

Two weeks ago, Steven Horwitz quoted J.B. Say:

[T]he encouragement of mere consumption is no benefit to commerce; for the difficulty lies in supplying the means, not in stimulating the desire of consumption; and we have seen that production alone furnishes those means. Thus it is the aim of good government to stimulate production, of bad government to encourage consumption.

Horwitz clarifies this by saying:

Of course “stimulating production” need mean nothing more than leaving producers free to seek out profits as they see fit within the standard classical-liberal framework of law. It does not mean government should artificially benefit producers any more than it should encourage consumption.

Horwitz is probably correct as to Say's meaning. But why should the producer view the government that way?

Assuming by "government" Say means "The State" (i.e., a coercive monopoly) as opposed to a voluntary government, his statement:

Thus it is the aim of good government to stimulate production, of bad government to encourage consumption.

might as well be read as:

The most tolerable State is one that stimulates production; the least tolerable State encourages consumption.

The State does not produce directly; it only consumes what the producers produce and acts against their interests. The State:

Takes resources producers may have otherwise used
Taxes the means of production
Taxes producer profits
Taxes consumers in various ways, leaving them with less purchasing power, which reduces corporate profits

Why, then, would producers even tolerate The State? There could be many historical reasons, but through most of history, conquest was a common means of devouring wealth and resources, and it was much wiser to let the King tax and protect you than to have no King and see the King from a nearby country invade, kill you, and enslave your family.

But as the State "evolved" into quasi-democratic forms, there was no self-interest on the part of producers to adhere to classical liberalism. As their wealth was confiscated by the State, it was only natural to use the political process to get something back - to "stimulate production" artificially.

For example: producers could ask themselves, "Why should we build and maintain roads to facilitate commerce and enlarge our markets? This would be costly if we did it ourselves, but if it was funded by just a small hike in taxes on everyone, the pain would be minimal and the benefits to us would be enormous!" Hence road-building, which they would have to do themselves in the absence of The State, is something that is "naturally" part of The State's role, and is seen as a "public good" rather than as a subsidy to producers.

Producers are naturally inclined to lobby for trade protections for themselves when that is most beneficial to them, and to lobby to use threats and military force to "open" the markets of other countries, when that is beneficial.

They will call for tax cuts for themselves, and for subsidies for their industries.

All of this "stimulates production," while the costs, which are relatively small for each form of favoritism, are spread throughout the entire tax base.

Call them "special interests," or call them prudent. In the eyes of the producers, they are doing nothing wrong given the reality of The State.

Consumers - "the people" - behave in exactly the same way when they call on The State to provide income security, health care, education grants, labor laws, "consumer protection" laws, and even restrictions on "offensive" behavior. They are using The State to make their own lives as satisfactory as possible.

Call it parasitical or call it democracy. In the people's eyes, they are doing nothing wrong given the reality of The State.

Because of The State, civil society is dog-eat-dog. It's "every man for himself" to get as much out of The State as he can - whether in the role as producer or consumer.

Maybe this is human nature. Maybe it is "corrupt." But if it is corrupt, it is the result of the existence of State power. Lord Acton is credited for saying "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely," but the corruption doesn't reside only in the officeholders who formally wield State power. In a representative democracy where most people can vote and be eligible for office in an unlimited State, the corruption pervades us all, because we focus less on what producers and consumers can give each other in free exchange, and focus more on how we can use The State for our advantage.

Improving the NFL

2011-01-04T12:00:00.000-08:00

Check out my latest at The Partial Observer. Excerpt:

If each division winner gets to go to the play-offs, the incentives should change. Two years ago, Arizona clinched their division after going 8-5 with three games to play. They stumbled badly in the next two games before winning their last one to go 9-7. The two wild-card teams, Philadelphia and Atlanta, were 9-6-1 and 11-5, respectively.
What if the Arizona Cardinals were told they must have an equal or better record as the wild-card teams to be guaranteed a home play-off game?

Faith in Authority

2010-12-28T10:13:00.000-08:00

Check out my latest at The Partial Observer. Excerpt:

And yet people who have the authority, without your personal consent, to discipline your children in school, to pull you over on a highway, to inspect your business establishment, or to review your financial records, are really your masters – even if they are called "public servants." Their "right" to do these things is just assumed. It is taken on faith, even though there is no evidence whatsoever that any of these intrusions on your life, liberty, and property serves "the common good." The only people who really benefit are those in authority who are paid to do these things to you.

The Golden Rule, Reformulated

2010-12-21T12:43:00.000-08:00

Check out my latest at the Partial Observer. Excerpt:

Humility also has political ramifications. Before saying "There ought to be a law!" against this or that supposedly harmful activity, a dose of humility is helpful:

How do I know that a law will actually curb this behavior?
I may find this behavior disgusting and unhealthy, but are the people engaged in it violating other people's rights?
My intentions are good, because I will be saving people from this destructive behavior – but is it really merciful and compassionate to throw them in jail instead?

Podcast Interview on Money

2010-12-20T08:40:00.000-08:00

Michael Ostrolenk of AAPS and the Liberty Coalition invited me to his podcast to talk about free currency. You can learn more and listen here.

How the Government Will Cost You $500,000

2010-12-16T07:33:00.000-08:00

http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/taxes-and-spending-how-the-government-will-cost-you-500000

Our friends at the Independent Institute have created a powerful personalized government cost calculator at MyGovCost.org.

This online software determines what government will cost you for the rest of your life, and also what you could have earned if you had invested that money instead.

We wanted to find out what government costs the "average" person. The results are on our blog. It's a shocking number . . .

The difference between what the government will cost the average person, and what he or she could have earned in the private market with that money, is over $500,000.

Will government cost you more or less than the average? To find out . . .

1. Go to http://www.mygovcost.org
2. Find out what government costs you, and how much you could have earned instead

If you don't like what you see, please send a letter telling Congress to cut federal spending.

You may borrow from or copy this letter . . .

You should do more than cut spending to keep deficits under control. To truly restore prosperity, you must cut the size, scope, and power of the federal government.

Government spending requires taxes and borrowing. This means I have less money to save and invest, and businesses have less capital with which to grow.

In fact, a person of median education, age, and income would earn $500,000 if his or her taxes were instead invested in private markets. http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/what-will-government-cost-the-average-person

What is government doing that is worth $500,000 of lost income?

* Social Security offers a poor return on my forced contributions
* Federal health and education spending have driven up costs 2-3 times the inflation rate over the past 50 years
* Wars, foreign aid, and troops stationed in 100+ countries seem to build anti-American resentment and make us LESS safe
* Most federal departments serve special interests or duplicate the work the Tenth Amendment leaves to the states and the people

You would serve me best by cutting spending and taxes. Nothing else you could do for me remotely compares in value, and in fact, the more you spend the more you cause me harm. Please stop harming me. Cut spending and taxes now!

END LETTER

You can send your letter using DownsizeDC.org's Educate the Powerful System.

And we encourage you to tell your friends about MyGovCost.org. http://www.mygovcost.org

James Wilson
Assistant Communications Director
DownsizeDC.org

Adam Carolla Economics

2010-12-14T16:29:00.000-08:00

Check out my latest at The Partial Observer. Excerpt:

It seems ironic that someone could do something only for the hefty paycheck, and yet not be greedy. But if Carolla or Favre HAD been greedy, they would have lost their leverage. They were willing to walk away from their jobs and receive no money at all.

The same logic applies to the tax considerations of the wealthy.

Imagine someone earning supposedly $1,000/hour, but because of a 36% tax rate, nets $640/hour. Because the new tax rate will be 40%, his net income is $600/hour.

When You Give the State an Inch, it Takes a Mile

2010-12-08T19:34:00.000-08:00

The charges have been leveled at heirs of the libertarian, classical liberal, and Old Right traditions for generations:

We would throw widows and orphans to the street.
Our "isolationism" would "appease" foreign aggressors and genocidal tyrants
We would wreck the environment due to our blind ideological commitment to free markets and property rights

A reasonable, well-intentioned person with a conventional upbringing and education may agree with these statements.

And yet:

These smears are just that: attacks by people who don't understand what freedom is, or lies by authoritarians who do
This freedomist/patriot ideology hasn't held power at any time, especially not in the past 100 years

What's happened instead, is that . . .

America isn't being bankrupted by helping the truly needy, but by pouring Social Security and Medicare disbursements to wealthy and middle-class people
We are pouring almost a trillion dollars per year not to defeat Hitler or the USSR, but to defend South Korea from North Korea (despite South Korea's overwhelmingly superior wealth and manpower), and to make war on nations like Afghanistan and Iraq that had no power to invade their impoverished neighbors, let alone conquer their regions or world.
The war on property and markets isn't used to curb just pollution, but to take land for the benefit of other private developers under the principle of eminent domain, to take property from its rightful owners without due process under the principle of civil asset forfeiture, and to outlaw behavior on private property such as smoking, making "sexist" remarks, and making contractual relationships between consensual adults

In other words, it is all the other ideologies that are driving America into poverty, endless war, and tyranny.

We should reverse the arguments. We should ask people with pro-government ideologies:

* Why are we shelving out money to rich people just because they're old?
* Why do we need to pay for the defense of wealthy competitors like Japan and Germany?
* Why do you want to tax and regulate small-time entrepreneurs out of existence?

The anti-tax, smaller government crowd haven't done any harm to America. That's probably why we're attacked so vociferously. It's time to turn the tables.

A Spending-Cut Spree

2010-12-07T13:34:00.000-08:00

Check out my latest at The Partial Observer. Excerpt:

It is easy to claim that my suggestions would never be implemented, and that these questions will fall on deaf ears in Washington. Typical D.C. politicians and bureaucrats espouse the ideologies of control freaks. That's why they want all of life – in America and throughout the world – to be funded by D.C. and regulated by D.C. They won't give up their power easily.
On the other hand, the looming bankruptcy of the U.S. may give them no choice.

Hosting Julian Assange

2010-12-05T16:57:00.000-08:00

Via Tom Knapp via No State:

"I, James Leroy Wilson, hereby pledge that if Julian Assange should call upon me in need of a place to stay, I will provide it to him with no questions asked, indefinitely, and with the highest degree of security and confidentiality I can provide. I’m easy to get a hold of."

Now it’s your turn. Simply replace my name with yours and publish. Link here if you wish, but publish.

Trust

2010-11-30T05:42:00.000-08:00

Check out my latest at The Partial Observer. Excerpt:

Where the circle of trust is small -- when no one trusts others beyond their family and best friends – it doesn't matter what kind of money circulates in the economy. If one believes others are on the take, it's easy to justify joining them.

But this means people will stop exchanging with each other. People will assume the money that others would give them is counterfeit. A nation could have lots of gold, but still be poor because the people refuse to engage in voluntary exchanges with each other.

Just as gold money won't make a nation rich, so it is true that rich nations don't require gold money. The form of money doesn't matter.
Rich nations get rich on trust.

URGENT: Fraudulent "Food Safety" Bill Vote TONIGHT

2010-11-29T07:38:00.000-08:00

http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/urgent-fraudulent-food-safety-bill-vote-tonight

Quote of the Day: "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." - H.L. Mencken

Tonight the Senate will vote on S.510, the fraudulent and dangerous "food safety bill."You can learn the details in our previous Dispatch.

We must ACT QUICKLY to swamp your Senators with our letters and phone calls, telling them to defeat the bill.

* You can send your letter using DownsizeDC.org's Educate the Powerful System

* Your Senators' phone numbers are posted with their contact information when you are logged in

Here's a sample letter you may borrow from or copy . . .

S.510 shreds our rights and makes our food LESS safe. It gives the FDA power . . .

* To make arbitrary laws in violation of the Constitution's Separation of Powers
* And to search private property without a court-issued warrant

I do, however, support the Tester-Hagan amendments. Without them . . .

* The compliance costs of S.510 will wipe out family farms and small businesses - even though they were not to blame for recent outbreaks
* Which means Big Ag will control more of our food
* Which in turn means LESS public accountability and MORE systemic risk

While you should support Tester-Hagan, the fact is that we don't need S.510 at all. Producers who want to keep customers and avoid lawsuits have enough incentive to ensure safe food.

Support Tester-Hagan, but defeat the final bill. Work to repeal burdensome regulations and create a real free market in America.

END LETTER

You can send your letter using DownsizeDC.org's Educate the Powerful System.

Please call your Senators as well.

And spread the word to your friends and social networks ASAP. Here is a handy url to give them: http://tinyurl.com/23klpxs

Thank you for being a DC Downsizer.

James Wilson
Assistant Communications Director
DownsizeDC.org

Government Spending Hurts the Economy

2010-11-23T06:43:00.000-08:00

Check out my latest at The Partial Observer. Excerpt:

Imagine if we instead engaged in a limited invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, targeting only Al Qaeda and NOT the Taliban? What if we never invaded Iraq?

That would have knocked off at least a trillion from the national debt right there.

And a trillion dollars spent on defense contractors to spend on bombs, Humvees, and bullets could have been invested instead in goods and services consumers actually want and need.