You’re Censoring People, not Corporations


The moment a corporation stands up, like Frankenstein’s Monster, and starts talking without human intervention, I’ll agree that they might be censored.

But the fact is that a “corporation” is comprised of individuals, and THEY have their freedom of speech protected…even while they work for or own that corporation.

Censorship advocates, like judicial nominee Elena Kagan, and Liberal Republican John McCain, want to silence people, on the flimsy premise that they happen to be members of a corporation. They are violating the first amendment, because individuals are writing the copy that is being banned from publication.

You might as well censor them for belonging to a political party. We could just say “the constitution protects individuals, not parties”.

For that matter, publishing houses, newspapers, and blog hosting sites are corporations…everything they publish could be censored the same way.

You could censor the corporation if it tried to talk like some monstrous creation, but not the employees and management of the company who are actually buying political ads or other speech.

Fire in a Crowded Theater


Why You CAN Yell Fire in a Crowded Theater...

Censorship advocates say “you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater”, to prove that there are limits to free speech.

But the way they mean it, is not true.

You cannot actually be banned from yelling fire in a crowded theater.

In fact, you are completely free to yell fire in a crowded theater, and as long as there’s an actual fire, you probably be treated as a hero.

If there is NOT a fire, but everyone believes that you honestly thought there was, you shouldn’t be penalized, either.

But if you LIED about it, and it turns out that people were hurt, money lost, et cetera, then you can pay civil and (dubiously) criminal penalties.

But that’s not a restriction of free speech: It’s justice for others, who have been violated by fraud, which is a kind of coercion as evil as any other.

In other words, it’s hurting people with lies that brings penalties, not that your speech can rightfully be censored.

Black Racism Proves the Problem is Government


The Obama administration's racist abuses show that the problem isn't the race or sex of the abusers, but that government authority always gets abused.

I have long said that the main problem with, say, black rappers and militant black activists against The White Man is simply that they are confusing “white” with “government”. This is illustrated by the fact that the Obama administration is committing abuses against whites, now, and then the black racist rants of the people they’re shielding from prosecution.

If you simply remove the word “white” from  “The White Man”, suddenly angry black men become part of a much larger movement, and their objections/complaints become perfectly valid, if not some of their “solutions”:

“The White Man is keeping you down!”

No, The Man [government] is keeping you down…it’s just that in your time and place, it happens to be “white”.

  • The problem with the laws that keep you dependent, or make becoming successful illegal, is the law, not the color of the skin of the fools passing it.
  • The problem with the drug war isn’t the White Man using it to keep down the Black Man, but that corrupt or foolish government officials are using it to oppress society in general, especially poorer people.
  • The problem with police brutality isn’t White Cops, it’s power-abusing cops, the culture of cowardice (shoot first, ask questions and get paid leave for being wrong later, for Police Safety), and entitlement/privilege (“we are paid to enforce the law, not obey it” and how dare you exercise your rights instead of complying abjectly) that is the problem.

Of course the solutions proposed, whether anarchist or black activist, can include foolishness like “kill the police“. But only among the most foolish or crazy, and it’s easier to fall into that animalistic reaction when it’s racial, as well. Racism is tribalism, which is always bad.

We can see this with Malcom X, who was reportedly outgrowing the violent racial nonsense, apparently that’s WHY Louis Farrakhan and friends had him killed.

As it’s revealed that the Obama administration ordered black crimes against whites to not be prosecuted, and that black government officials specifically neglected helping white people, we can see that the problem is that authoritarian government ALWAYS gets abused, not the race or sex of the people who happen to be abusing it at any given moment in time.

Hayek Trumps Rothbard: Free Market in Money, not Fiat Gold


ALL VALUE is a “mutually shared illusion” in the marketplace.

What we need is not for a socialist government to force us to all use Fiat Gold, which is what Rothbardian faux-Austrians claim, but instead to have a free market in currency, like Hayek and the real Austrians have long said.

Money is an accounting tool, it has its own intrinsic worth as a means of facilitating and measuring trade and value. If you saddle it with some secondary function and valuation, like forming jewelry and USB connectors, then you end up with an even more unstable economy, as the value of the money becomes less predictable, changing with the supply and demand of that secondary commodity.

This is why we had bigger, worse economic downturns from 1873-1934, on the gold standard, and our best overall period of growth from 1973-2001, when we left Breton Woods and had not yet encountered the massive, Hoover-like growth of government under Bush.

The True Means of Production


Socialists like to proclaim that the workers are the means of production, and therefore should own all of its benefits.
But the factory worker is, in fact, the LEAST of the elements that goes into the production of wealth:
  • The inventor’s role is indispensable.
    Without him, there is nothing to make.
  • The entrepreneur, who recognizes the value of the invention and promotes its production, is almost as important.
    Without him, the invention is a dead end.
  • While anyone can invest, those who do are unique among the society in taking a risk and enabling the production.
    Without them, there are no resources for making it.
  • Without the facilitation of the management, everything would still fall on its face. Only some people are capable of organizing with any competence.
    Without this, people end up running in circles.
  • The engineers, who may not know science, but figure out how to produce things efficiently, have a relatively rare skill.
    Without them, nothing can be built effectively.
  • After all of that, the workers are little more than human cogs. Almost anyone can be trained into a production worker’s role…a fact that is exploited by the oppressive union monopolies, who TREAT them like interchangeable numbers.

Laborers can be proud of how they accomplish their otherwise-interchangeable role, and of their potential to move beyond their basic position. They have a right to the ambition of moving up into a less disposable role…but to pretend they are the “means of production” is fraudulent.

Local Food is Bad for the Environment


If you’re worried about “carbon footprint”, then you should buy mass-produced, agribusiness foods, not local.

Local food, because it’s grown on a smaller scale, is produced and shipped less efficiently. The little tractor, pickup truck, et cetera, end up consuming more fossil fuels per pound of food than ones produced by huge combines and shipped in 18 wheelers.

I know, from a simplistic Green perspective, inductively reasoned perspective, “big is bad”, but the reality is different.

For example, an ancient, coal-powered steam engine passenger train, belching out black smoke, pollutes less than the number of automobiles its passengers would have otherwise needed…and likewise, big combines and cargo ships/barges pollute less — per food item harvested — than tractors and pickup trucks.

Likewise, smaller farmers tend to use pesticides and fertilizers less efficiently, for the same reasons. They also waste more water per pound of food irrigating.

Now if I actually buy, say, tomatoes, it’s only the ones that actually taste good, which are usually from some stand and often are locally grown. I’m not worried about it either way…but I don’t have any delusions of helping the environment, I just prefer that my tomatoes not taste like mealy goop.

References:

Corporations are Socialism



It's amazing how many things government intervention causes, and then blames on economic freedom

When people discover Stop Blaming Capitalism for Socialism’s Failures, or its Facebook Group, some are astonished at the list of problems government intervention has caused, them blamed on freedom of choice.

What often surprises them the most is that it includes the modern corporation.

We’re taught, in socialized education anyway, that corporations are an icon of everything wrong with capitalism.

The problem is that everything that makes a modern corporation has been imposed on us by government laws and force…and that’s socialism.

In fact, you can’t anything like the modern “public corporation”, in a free market.

Why could British Petroleum take risks that no privately owned company would dare? Because it’s effectively nationalized, as a Public Corporation. No owners or managers will be held accountable for the oil spill, not even under Obama’s abrogation of Rule of Law. Likewise any managers or owners in a company selling products it secretly knows are harmful, or fraudulent.

This is why you hear ads on the radio, by The Company Corporation, saying that you should incorporate your business, or to avoid liability for any harm you cause.

In a free market, there would be no way to simply renounce your liability for actions you take, or a company you own.

This can only be done by government fiat.

The very reason that Liberal Democrats pushed for the creation of corporate law, in the US, was to nationalize industries that they could not openly take over.

Since they couldn’t get people to accept an unaccountable People’s Automaking Bureau like you could in China, they simply ensured that existing automakers would become unaccountable bureaucracies owned by People.

In order to get the special treatment of a public corporation, a company must become OWNED by “the public”:

It is not allowed to simply write a custom document of ownership and sell stock to the public, to raise millions in capital. Instead, the company must follow a massive set of regulations, becoming in effect a mini-government.  In return for selling out their property rights, its owners and management become exempt from the consequences and liability for their actions, just like government bureaucrats.

Companies that do this, of course, have an unfair edge over companies that do not…so they come to dominate an industry, for example automaking.

And thus, the automaking industry comes to be owned by The People, through a quasi-governmental agency.

Impure, adulterated socialism, called Market Socialism…but socialism nonetheless.

The Double Thank-You of Capitalism


John Stossel is correct, when he points out that politics and socialism are Zero Sum Games, where wealth is taken by force and nothing gained, while the free market is a Win-Win Game, where in any transaction both sides feel they have gained, not lost.

You thank the clerk, and he thanks you…because he wanted the money more than the product, and you wanted the product more than the money.

Keynes is Dead, Long Live…Keynes?


Each time a government has tried to spend its way out of a depression, the result has been ongoing economic failure

John Maynard Keynes was an economist…or at least a political activist who used economic-sounding arguments to justify government intervention.

In the 1930s, he was THE economist, if you believed in that government intervention.

But, as we all know, his Theory proved to be a complete failure. It failed to produce results during the Great Depression, but staggered on until the 1970s, when it failed so spectacularly, causing staflation, that it was pronounced dead, even by Liberals in the US and open socialists around the world.

But, unfortunately, George Bush came along in 2001, and after having run as a free marketer, governed as a Keynesian. He infected the political scene with the premise that you could stimulate an economy out of a downturn, by having the government spend massively, even as it increased regulation (in part, by putting strings on the spending). When the economy fell into trouble because of his bad foreign and domestic policies, he responded with Stimulus and Bailout™ packages. That trademark, of course, means that he must pay the Keynes estate a royalty for each mention.

Obama, having run as the Anti-Bush, has committed the perplexing political suicide of simply building on every Bush precedent…most of which really are more Liberal Democrat in tenor, anyway…and one of the symptoms is that he continued the Stimulus and Bailout™ packages.

The problem, as we predicted and is now proving true, is that stimulus spending and bailouts don’t help the economy: They hurt it.

This pattern of behavior has caused what people denying the word Depression call a “double dip recession”, which we’re entering (again) right now.

The only way out, is to end the Keynesian meddling, and let the economy grow on its own. Japan and Sweden learned this the hard way, after each suffering a “lost decade” in the nineties. Now it’s our turn.

%d bloggers like this: