Ban tuxedo rentals

Renting an $800 tux for a weekend can cost you $200.

That's a lot. Now imagine  you are late returning it. The late fees will probably be sky-high!

That's a problem.  There should be a law protecting consumers from the gouging practices of the tuxedo rental industry. Maybe they should be shut down altogether!

It shouldn't matter that most renters return their tuxes on time. Or that the service gives many people an opportunity to fulfill a family or social obligation they otherwise couldn't afford.

After all, if you have to rent a tux and can't afford to buy one, you're probably already prone to poor financial decisions.

So the government should limit your choices. You can't wear a tux for the prom or as a groomsman? That's unfortunate, but it's for your own good.

You may think I'm being ridiculous. But why? A tux rental ban is no more absurd than regulating the payday lending industry.

Who cares if low-income people will be denied access to emergency funds? It's a minor inconvenience. A small price to pay for the government protecting you from your own decisions.

It's for your own good

Money, health, love

Money is like health and love: an energy source that can help create an easier and more pleasant life.

You may have lots of money because you worked hard for it. You may also be in excellent shape because you work out. You might be well-loved because you worked sacrificially on behalf of others.

Then again, you may have lots of money because it was given to you. You may be in excellent shape because of good genes. You may be well-loved because of your charismatic personality without having done anything virtuous or admirable.

And, it's very possible that hard work won't lead to more money, or a better body, or the love of others.

You might deserve what you want, but not get it. Others may have what you want, without ever "earning" it.

You can resent them, or be happy for their good fortune.

What's the benefit of resentment? 

Why wealth seems bad

I've encountered this meme on social media.

“Prior to capitalism, the way people amassed great wealth was by looting, plundering and enslaving their fellow man. Capitalism made it possible to become wealthy by serving your fellow man.” - Walter E. Williams

I agree with Dr. Williams, but I see why the statement doesn't satisfy some people. They don't object to "serving your fellow man," but to the desire to become wealthy.

Part of that comes from the historical circumstances Williams mentioned; the "looting, plundering, and enslaving." In many hierarchical cultures transitioning to democracy, the assumption remains that that's how the wealthy get that way. Justice seems to require the redistribution of wealth, with little thought about wealth creation.

Even in cultures with a long history of markets, the perception persists, with good reason, that the system is rigged. Whether it's intellectual property law, the choice of where to build a road, or government regulations and subsidies, it seems that the well-connected, who are often the already-wealthy, have special advantages.  

Or, the government creates incentives that may misdirect resources. Home-building may be encouraged. Or bailouts of bankrupt companies. Or the building of unnecessary  infrastructure or production of unnecessary war weapons. In these ways, some will get rich not just off the backs of their fellow taxpayers, but off of future generations living in a harmed environment.

Finally, there's the moral or spiritual aspect of wealth that turns some people off. The pursuit of material goods as a sign of status is alleged to generate feelings of emptiness and unhappiness. And such pursuit may lead some to make ethical compromises or commit outright crime. And for what? When you die, you can't take your possessions with you.

On the other hand, if you're reading this you've achieved some degree of wealth -- access to the Internet -- that was inaccessible to even the wealthiest of us a few decades ago. So the condemnation of wealth always seems to be relative, and the conception of "basic necessities" evolves to accommodate greater societal wealth.

So even if you prefer to live modestly, if you also want others to live longer, healthier lives, wealth must be generated. And such wealth is brought about most swifty, and most justly, in free-market capitalism, where individuals are free to serve each other.

Morality and the Free Market

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.

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

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

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.

Nations Don't Have Economies

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

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

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.

Firefly and Artificial Scarcity

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.

New Downsize DC Posts

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.
  

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

I discuss this at The Downsize DC Foundation.

What is "Income?"

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.

Producers, Consumers, and The State

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.

Podcast Interview on Money

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

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

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

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

1. We would throw widows and orphans to the street.
2. Our "isolationism" would "appease" foreign aggressors and genocidal tyrants
3. 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.

Trust

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.

Why I Don't Recycle

Check out my latest at The Partial Observer. Excerpt:

I believe cities and towns across America are making a big mistake. If recycled aluminum, glass, paper, plastics, etc. was of any value, individuals would be able to sell their recyclables on their own.

Moreover, if it was cheaper to recycle than to, for instance, mine new aluminum and produce new glass, companies would, on their own, start their own deposit programs. They would charge $1.10 for a $1.0 bottle of pop, and then give back ten cents when the empty bottle is returned.