Chuck Grimmett

Archives

Category: Politics

  • Day 337 – “Cash for Caulkers” ??

    ,

    When I first heard of this, I thought someone misspelled “Clunkers”… then I read on and realized this is another CfC-named program the government is putting on. I am sure you remember Cash for Clunkers, the $3 billion transfer program that destroyed wealth, right? Well, here is a new one- Cash for Caulkers, a “stimulus” program that plans to retrofit energy inefficient houses to make them more energy efficient, while providing jobs at the same time.

    Read some of the details. I do not think this program is in effect yet, but since the president held his jobs summit today, I think this will likely come along soon. I found this by looking for something to write about for my last Austrian economics paper. I think my last paper is going to be an Austrian critique of this.

  • Day 326 – Stats on ‘U.S. Consumerism’

    ,

    I often hear individuals on the news or read articles that lament about “U.S. consumerism.”

    Today, during a discuss about an economics article with a friend, the question of consumerism came up. After the discussion, as I browsed my bookshelf, I spotted my Pocket World in Figures 2009 edition by The Economist, and thought, “I wonder what the stats show about how ‘consumerist’ the U.S. is compared to other countries?”

    Here are some interesting results I found. Take from them what you will:

    -The U.S. is not 1st, but 9th in the rankings of highest GDP per head and highest purchasing power per head.

    -The U.S. is 12th in the human development index.

    -The U.S. is the 3rd least trade dependent nation in terms of trade as a percent of GDP.

    -The U.S. is the 2nd largest world exporter.

    -On the lists of top consumers in different commodities markets, the U.S. only topped 5/21 lists. (Cocoa, coarse grains, coffee, natural gas, and oil)

    -The U.S. is 20th in color televisions per 100 households.

    -The U.S. is not even in the top 48 countries for mobile phone subscribers per 100 people.

    -The U.S. is 15th in CD players per 100 households.

    -The U.S. is 6th in computers per 100 people.

    -The U.S. is 24th in daily teenager computer use.

    -The U.S. is 16th in number of cars per 1,000 people.

    -The U.S. is 5th in music downloads per head.

    Conclusion:
    I am starting to doubt that the U.S. is the dark pit of consumerism in the world today that it is frequently portrayed as. It looks to me like the U.S. is definitely not the ‘consumerist’ country. I am not disputing that it is there, but it is definitely not as serious as other places.

  • Day 225 – “Pre-existing Conditions”

    ,

    I was thinking about all the nonsense coming out in the health care reform debates about insurance companies denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions. I want to question what will happen if insurance companies can no longer pick who they insure based on this.

    Before I begin, I want to remind you to put your emotions aside while you read this, and remember that I think that having health problems is a terrible thing, and I feel for those who have health problems and have problems getting insurance coverage. I am just arguing that using government force is not the way to fix this, and might actually make things worse.

    Also, before I begin, this is from HealthReform.govArchived Link: “Under health insurance reform, insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing coverage because of someone’s medical history or health risk.”

    Now, to what I wanted to say:
    Insurance companies are in the business of taking on risk and providing compensation for some sort of specified loss. Those firms’ livelihood depend on their ability to calculate risk and gamble on it. Look at, for example, housing insurance in known high-risk flood areas. Most insurance companies will not insure homes in these areas. The companies know the home will likely be washed away in a flood and, if they choose to insure it, they will have to rebuild it every few years. Insuring homes like this frequently would probably bankrupt a company. Remember, insurance companies are gambling. They look at the amount of risk they are taking on and make decisions on who and what to cover based on how much and how often they will have to pay out.

    If you are playing poker and know you will not win the hand, do you fold or call? If you are concerned about your money, you fold, obviously. If you are concerned with giving money to someone else at the table, you call. This is just a hunch, but I am pretty sure insurance companies are concerned with their own assets. They are not insuring you because they want to help you…if this was the case, they should just hand out money to everyone around. They are insuring you in order to make money by providing a service to you. If they think that insuring you is not a good investment, they will not do it. They do not make money by paying out more in claims than they can possibly bring in. They avoid paying out more in claims than they being in by rationally selecting who they will insure. (If you think insurance companies should be there to help you instead of make money, get in contact with me. I would like to explain some things to you.)

    How does an insurer rationally select (in the case of health insurance) who it will insure? A lottery system is a bad plan, as it will just provide a smaller, but very similar sample of the general populous. Instead, insurance companies look at health history, lifestyle, etc, and calculate the risk of insuring someone. Frequently, these companies decline to insure people with pre-existing conditions, or people with lifestyles which will likely lead to health problems. Or, if it does insure these people, it weeds out more of them in another way: price. Typically, health insurance premiums are higher for smokers, because smokers are more likely to have health issues. This works in two ways: it discourages smokers from seeking out health insurance from these firms (and causes some to stop smoking), and the firms get more money from the smokers it does cover, so it does not lose as much money. Either way, it keeps more money in the firms’ accounts. The more they can select who they cover, the less they have to pay out. This keeps them in business.

    To take it into other areas of insurance: Why do insurance premiums go up (or your coverage dropped) if you frequently get speeding tickets, DUIs, and get in accidents? The insurance companies know you are a higher risk, so adjust accordingly. Should the insurance company be forced to provide car insurance to known DUI offenders? I think not. Should insurance companies be forced to cover homes they know will be wiped out by floods roughly every three years? I think not. Why, then, should insurance companies be forced to cover people with conditions that make them a high risk for making future insurance claims? (I want it to be known here that I am not equating people with medical conditions with DUI offenders or houses that need rebuilt every three years. Look beyond the particulars here to the underlying components here.)

    Now, what will happen if these firms are no longer allowed to select based on if someone has pre-existing condition? I see two things happening. The first is that premiums will sky-rocket. The second is that, over time, insurance companies will stop providing health care insurance all together. Medical/health insurance will give them huge losses, so they will drop that all together and stick to insuring other things. Should this happen, only one provider of health care coverage would be left: the government. It bothers me to think about that, but I am pretty sure that is what would happen. Back to the flood plain example: who provides low cost home insurance in known flood plains? The government. Other insurance companies can’t afford it. Only the government can because it is taking the money from your pockets at the point of a gun. This is what I dislike the most. If you are okay with the government taking your wealth, we have a lot more to talk about. Please contact me.

    The current health care reform may not look like a government take over, but I fear that it might be in the near future. A take over of the health insurance industry is not explicitly written into the reform bill, it does not have to be. If the government makes providing health insurance no longer profitable, it will no longer happen privately.

    I would like to point out that there have been a lot of particulars brought up by individuals in the government in order to get people upset about firms selecting on the basis of pre-existing conditions. Here is a quote from HealthReform.govArchived Link: “But a pre-existing condition does not have to be a serious disease like cancer or heart disease. Even relatively minor conditions like hay fever, asthma, or previous sports injuries can trigger high premiums or denials of coverage.” I am not in the health insurance industry, but some of these ‘conditions’ seem a little harsh to limit covering someone because of. I am not advocating, however, that the government regulate these companies and force them to stop their selecting practices. There are other ways of getting the company to change its ways. Stop buying insurance from them. Threaten to stop buying from them. Picket them. Send them millions of letters. Just don’t use force to get them to change. Providing insurance should be a voluntary thing, on both ends, not a forced thing.

  • Day 220 – Philosophical vs Utilitarian Arguments

    , ,

    Brad and I drove up to his house on Chautauqua Lake this morning. On the way, we discussed some of the recent health care issues taking place in this country. (We also discussed various other things, but that is not the topic of this post.) While discussing the arguments against the health care reforms and how effective these arguments are, I was reminded of the importance of using philosophical arguments to win these types of battles.

    Though utilitarian arguments are useful for certain situations, I think individuals defending liberty ought to seldom use them. Most utilitarian arguments are single-use, since they are special tailored to each situation. If you are going for a one time, quick win, utilitarian arguments can be very useful and the statistical evidence can be easily shown to everyone. Defenders of liberty, however, need to focus their arguments a little more long-term. The downside to using utilitarian arguments is that, because they are tailored to each situation, one might need many additional arguments in the future for all the new situations that arise. “You’ve won the battle, but not the war” seems to fit this–a utilitarian argument shows why one should support/oppose X but usually says little to nothing about all situations similar to X but with different particulars.

    Philosophical arguments, on the other hand, strike at the root of the issue. If one can convince others that X is wrong on philosophical grounds, other arguments in the future on issues with similar foundations can be avoided. Instead of convincing people that your position on a single issue is correct, you can convince them that your philosophical outlook is correct and it will cover a whole range of issues.

    As for arguing against the proposed healthcare reform, instead of attacking it as costly and poorly designed, defenders of liberty should try to convince people using one of these arguments or something similar:

    Using coercion to justify and fulfill one’s preferences is wrong.
    Stealing money from individuals to support other individuals is wrong.

    Of course, there are many other ways to argue against the proposed health care reform. Here is a good article I recently read from the Center for a Stateless Society on a market anarchist approach to health care.

  • Day 97 – Soft Despotism, Democracy’s Drift

    ,
    Dr. Paul A. Rahe

    Tonight I had the privilege of going to a lecture and panel discussion of Dr. Rahe, Dr. Birzer, Dr. Morrisey, and Dr. Arnn on democracy’s drift into soft despotism. The talk was centered upon Dr. Rahe’s recently published book, Soft Despotism, Democracy’s Drift: Montesquieu, Rousseau, Tocqueville, and the Modern Prospect. (Timely, because the 250 year anniversary of Tocqueville’s death is next Thursday.) The talk and all of the speakers were excellent. I purchased the book and I will comment on it once I read it (which will most likely not be until this summer).

    At the book signing afterwards, Dr. Rahe made an interesting comment to me that I have to think about for a while. He said that for freedom to work in America, social conservatives need to be libertarian, and libertarians need to be socially conservative. I think he is making a great point there, but I need to think through the short justification he provided me. Look for my thoughts on this later in the year when I have more free time to write. This comment really intrigued me, so I intend to think about it in the coming months.

  • Day 96 – Snow, Exams, and Political Essays

    ,

    What do all of these things have in common? My day today!

    First of all, the outcome of the snowstorm in the photos I posted last night was about 4 inches of wet, heavy snow on top of everything. We had several large tree branches fall around campus due to the weight of the snow. It was a sunny day, though, so it was beautiful! Surprisingly, the snow is still on the ground, even though it was in the high 30s today. Everything will freeze again tonight, though, since it will be in the 20s.

    I have two exams coming up; one Tuesday in microeconomics, one Wednesday in poly-econ. I am spending my evening studying for them, as well as a quiz I have in Calc II tomorrow.

    As for political essays, you should read Patri Friedman’s essay at the Cato Institute, titled Beyond Folk Activism. (I am in the acknowledgements at the end, because I was part of the editing team!) It is a great essay outlining the dangers of folk activism and focusing on realistic activism and alternatives to folk activism.

    Also worthy of reading, Detroit businessmen had enough of government fiat and created a private currency that is being used around Detroit! I need to go there and find some before the government tries to shut it down. (Unfortunately, though, it is backed by U.S. currency, so is subject to the same dangers. Maybe they will eventually back it with gold or silver.)

  • Day 84 – Abolish the Postal System’s Monopoly

    ,

    As I was going through my daily list of blogs that I read, I stumbled upon an article by Jacob Hornberger advocating an end on the postal monopoly. This caught my attention because I argued for the very same thing in my AP Government class in high school. Of course, many of my fellow students thought that idea was lunacy (which it probably the same thing they thought of me, as I frequently brought up similar ideas…).

    Simply put, the government monopoly on first class mail is a clear use of coercion to prop up an inefficient business and keep out competition, thus keeping prices at a predetermined level instead of at a competitive market rate. This is unacceptable, incompatible with a free society, and an inefficient use of resources. Advocates of the postal monopoly claim that without the monopoly, the USPS could not run. They go on to argue that without the USPS, there would not be universal letter delivery. This argument is simply false, and was proven wrong all the way back in 1844 when Lysander Spooner started the American Letter Mail Company and almost drove the USPS out of business in a matter of months. The USPS used government force to shut him down and have done the same to several companies since. Could letter mail be delivered to remote places without the USPS? Of course. Remote places are provided with the necessities of life, yet there is no government office in charge of distributing food to everyone in the nation (yet…).

    You might laugh at the previous paragraph, but you do not live in fear of bread not being available tomorrow, yet the government does not provide such things. Who does? Individuals in the marketplace. Production of bread is a staple of almost all Americans’ lives, but no one is worried about it being provided, even though firms on the market provide it. Would first class mail be any different? Of course not. The postal monopoly is unnecessary. It is only government coercion backed up with poor arguments, which shield other political reasons for its existence.

    It is time to amend Article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, striking the claus that says “Congress shall have power to establish post-offices and post roads.” Though I am in favor of getting rid of the USPS entirely, that is unnecessary since it will most likely not be able to compete with other firms once the force-backed barrier to entry is lifted.

    If you have any questions or concerns, or disagree with me, I would love to hear it, so email me or post a comment. My email address: cagrimmett [at] gmail [dot] com

    Here are some sources to read on this topic:
    Why Not Abolish the Postal Monopoly? by Jacob G. Hornberger
    Postal Commissars to Raise Rates. Don’t Complain. by Ted Roberts
    The Unconstitutionality of the Laws of Congress, Prohibiting Private Mails by Lysander SpoonerArchived Link
    The Last Dinosaur: The U.S. Postal Service by James Bovard

  • Day 48 – ARRA Signed Into Law

    ,

    ALT

     

    Today, President Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act into law in Denver. The final version was 132,974 words, cost $787 billion dollars, and the amended version was passed in a matter of days. The picture above says what I think – this is going to destroy the dollar. Inflation will continue to rise and even speed up. Before you know it, you will be better off burning dollar bills to keep warm than using the dollar bills to pay for natural gas heat. It is about time to pick a better medium of exchange than fiat currency (Federal Reserve Notes) backed by the “full faith and credit of the United States Government.” Want a stable currency? 

     

    The irony of the photo above is that if the government was burning money, the currency would essentially deflate. Luckily for us (not) the government is creating more money, which lowers the purchasing power of each dollar.

  • Day 24 – Response to Comments

    ,

    Today’s post is a response to the numerous comments that I received, both online and in person, on my post about President Obama’s Inaugural Address. Please read the comments before reading this post.

     

    I want everyone to know that I appreciate the comments. If you ever need clarifications on what I write, just leave a comment and I will do my best to explain. Also, I enjoy reading individuals’ thoughts on what I write, especially if they disagree or find an error. Anytime errors that can be corrected benefit us all by bringing us closer to the truth.

     

    First, I want to start out with a few clarifications of what I do and do not support, in case it was not clear in my last post. From some of the comments that I received, there seems to have been a little confusion with this.

     

    I do not support the Republican Party or the Bush administration. Both have strayed far from their original goals and I think that the Bush administration brought more socialism to the United States since the 1930s than any other administration through massive intervention into the financial markets, the attempted take over of the auto industry, massive intervention into the medical industry, and a very large growth of government. That said, I do not support any political party, so in criticizing President Obama’s ideas, I am not in favor of any other candidate.

     

    I do not support ad hominem attacks on the new president. Calling him by his middle name, Hussein, is trying to make a connection between him and terrorists and is nonsense. He clearly is not a terrorist and, though I do not know him personally, I suspect he is most likely a morally upright man. Calling him a terrorist makes one sound like a jingoistic, nationalistic, talk-radio host. We should look at what President Obama advocates rather than the correlations between his name and the name of a man who slaughtered hundreds of thousands of people. I also want to remind everyone that ideas expressed in the comments on my blog are not my own unless posted by me under the name “cagrimmett”. Each person takes responsibility of his or her own comment.

     

    When I say “government”, I mean government as is seen in the world today. Technically, the word government can mean the regulation of any relationship between any two or more entities. What I mean here when I say government is the coercive body which regulates and controls a nation, state, or community, which we see in the world today. (All governments proper in the world today employ coercion to stay in power.) I am not arguing government in its regulation of some sort of relationship between entities should not exist, because that is impossible. Any time there is a regulation, even if both sides contractually agree, there is government. What I am against is coercive government, a.k.a. the kind that we see most often in the world today. When I say government, I mean the coercive sense rather than the regulation of any relationship between any two or more entities unless I specify. If it is ever unclear, ask.

     

    When I talk about the free market, I am not talking about the market that we see in America, I am not talking about “American Capitalism” as we see today, and I am not talking about the so-called free market that the Republicans advocate. Such things are not the free market. There has not been a free market in America, or anything relatively like it, since the 1800s. In fact, I do not think a clear example of it can be seen in the world today. I am talking about the free market that Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, Menger, Hazlitt, and others advocated. If you do not know what I am talking about, ask me. What we see in America today is a market with very large interference and control by the government. Some people call it a free market, but it really is not. 
     

    Happeningfish, this part is addressed to you: A large part of what I wanted to reply to you with was said in the free market paragraph and the government paragraph above, so I will not repeat myself. You wrote, “To say that more government necessarily means less freedom is naive in the extreme and displays a lack of familiarity with different shades of government and policy in effect around the world.” I agree that I do not know all of the different shades of government and policy around the world. I do, however, understand how government exists and I understand the necessity of freedom. I agree with Mises when he says, “Government is essentially the negation of liberty.” If you can show me a situation where more government proper produces more personal and economic freedom than less government proper can, I would be very interested and it would, if your example is true, change the way I view things and what I believe.

     

    Sean, this part is addressed to you: I think that our country’s biggest problem is not intolerance of race, religion, or lifestyles (though certainly those are problems, I agree); it is that we do not have a firm foundation of property rights and what we do have is not entirely protected. I think once property rights are fully in place and respected, it will do more for fixing the problems that intolerance causes than President Obama can fix by trying to unite people. We have discussed this before. I think it works the opposite way as well, though. Once people are “united” and people are more tolerant, property rights will be respected. The more difficult of these two tasks is in getting people united, though. Like I said, once property rights are respected–by the government as well as people–the problems caused by intolerance will be minimal to non-existent. 

     

    Also, Sean, when I say “sheep”, I mean people blindly following what they hear without fully examining the consequences. I admit that I am occasionally a sheep, as is everyone at some point in time) but I try to minimize the amount of time I am by continually learning and questioning.

     

    Alex (and partially, Mort), this part is addressed to you: Monopolies can not happen under an actual free market. Artifically high prices can not be sustained for any long length of time unless there are government barriers to entry. If prices are too high, the “monopoly” has to contend with the possibility of competitors entering the market and producing goods and selling them at lower prices. If the original firm once afforded to sell its goods at a lower price, chances are their competitors can do the same and the artificially high price becomes unsustainable. On the other hand, Rothbard extends Mises’ socialism argument to show that a free-market monopoly cannot persist anyway. If a firm has no competitors, it becomes subject to the same calculation problems inherent in a socialist system, and will become uncompetitive and lose its position of dominane. The real monopoly is the government. Do you have any choice to start another form of government in an area? No. Force will be used to subdue you and tear down what you started. As of now, your only choice is a coercive government here or elsewhere and the degree of coercion (forced confiscation of wealth or slaughter). I will write more about my understanding of monopolies, and why they do not exist under a free market, in the future.

     

    Also, Alex, a choice between two individuals in government is not the same in any respects to a choice between two goods in the free market. You are correct, the majority of the people wanted Obama. I am not saying that if they want to be happy they should go against what “they feel in their own hearts is correct.” Being happy is a subjective thing. I am saying that if they want to be free, the LAST place to turn is the government. I do not know “more about what they want and need than they do.” If they want Obama, that is fine. I am just telling them what is likely to be the consequence of their decisions. (By the way, you might want to check your basis of what is a right. In my opinion, “the most important right[s] in the history of the world” are property rights.) Also, I do not like democracy. Like our government, I think it is illegitimate.

     

    I have a few more comments about President Obama’s address. If he wants to extend opportunity to every willing heart, he needs to immediately stop government subsidies of all kinds, because they are selective and amount to favoritism. They help out inefficient businesses and encourage the misallocation of resources. Additionally, he needs to read up on the Austrian Business Cycle Theory. If he is worried about these booms, busts, and recessions, the best thing to do is deregulate the financial markets. A basic understanding of the ABCT tells us that these conditions which cause recessions and economic downturns are caused by the Federal Reserve artificially lowering interest rates. Artificially low interest rates amount to printing money and “is an artificial means of recovering from a very real effects of an artificial boom.”  To quote more of Dan Mahoney, “Money is property, and under a monetary system which makes it appear that more property exists for production than actually exists, failure is inevitable.” Instead of allowing markets to clear malinvestment, the current monetary system keeps propping it up until the bottom drops out. What happens then? A recession, until entrepreneurs have time to liquidate. Only though the process of converting malinvestments to productive capital can the foundation for growth be achieved.

     

    One thing I am positive about in Obama’s presidency is that he loves technology. He promises to set up a website, recovery.gov, to show where tax dollars are spent. He also promises to digitize the nation’s health records within 5 years. Anytime the government becomes more accountable (if you can trust their information), it is a good thing. He also is doing a weekly YouTube address.

     

    Also, keep perspective in mind over the next four years. The bar has been set pretty low by the socialism and false promises of the Bush administration, so it is difficult for Obama to look bad.

  • Day 20 – Inauguration Day

    ,

    As nearly everyone knows, President Obama was sworn in today at noon eastern time by Chief Justice Roberts on the West Front of the U.S. Capitol. I was in English class with Dr. Jackson during the whole process, so I missed it, but I watched the speeches online later in the day. I admit that the new President is a wonderful speaker, but be wary of thisArchived Link. As Alan Caruba wrote over at The Progress of LibertyArchived Link, “[I]f words alone could lift this nation out of its current financial crisis, its wars, and other problems, President Barack Obama could make that happen.” Unfortunately for America and its new President, good intentions do not guarantee desirable outcomes.

     

    I just want to comment on a small part of what the President said. A little over half-way through, he said:

    Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control – and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our Gross Domestic Product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart – not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.

    Download the full-text transcript of President Obama’s address.

     

    He has absolutely correct when he said that the market’s power to generate wealth and freedom is unmatched. No system even comes close to rivaling the free market in its power to generate wealth. Where he went wrong was in what followed. What this crisis has actually reminded us is that with government intervention into the market, artificially created inflation, fiat money, government bailouts, high tax rates, and deficit spending make the market no longer free – in fact, it drives it into a brick wall. “The success of our economy” depends on the government backing out of the market entirely and stopping its nonsense. Only a market entirely free of government intervention and a people free from government coercion can “extend opportunity to every willing heart”. The government cannot do these things, and to a great extent, a market infected by the government cannot either.

     

    The President closed with this: 

    Let it be said by our children’s children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God’s grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.

    I will close for the day with this: If the government and America stay on the current course they are both on, freedom will soon be a thing of the past. Our children will know nothing but the statist quo (yes, I spelled that correctly…it is a play on words). Future generations, instead of rejoicing in freedom, will live under the coercive hand of government and know only of tyranny. As the new President said, we must act now. Just be sure not to follow his advice if and when you get around to acting.

     

    By the way, I am willing to answer questions and clarify anything I wrote here. If you disagree with me, that is fine, I just ask that you be nice about it if you leave a comment.

  • Day 5 – “Free” Country

    , ,

    Thank goodness we live in a free country where we can live the way we want and the government does not control us!

     

    …yeah right.

     

    Don Cooper, an economist in Atlanta, Georgia, gets it right. In an article at LRC, he explains a normal day in statist America. I suggest reading it.

     

    (I updated from my iPod today!)

  • Fear for America

    ,

    I have heard many people, especially here at Hillsdale, say they are afraid for America today. Most of them say this because they fear Obama getting elected. I believe it does not matter who has more votes when the polls close tonight. My fear for America will go on, no matter who gets elected. Things made a change for the worse before any of us, or our parents, were born. Until people in America embrace freedom and realize the coercive state is feeding them nonsense, things will be no better. 

     

    “There was once a dream that was America. And friends, this is not it. This is not it.”

     

    I will leave you with what Anthony Gregory, a research analyst from the Independent Institute, wrote today:

    You might think you’re voting against the war or tax hikes, but it will instead be counted as just another voice of unity behind the dictatorial mandates of the chosen leader. There is an awful lot to complain about. If you have fundamental disagreements with American politics, reject the whole system. So long as most Americans are swindled by the promises of mass democracy and distracted by its insanities, we cannot be free. So long as national unity is seen as a goal to be pursued through nationalism and the coercive central state, we will be needlessly divided.

    Read the rest of his article:

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory170.html

  • Personal Beliefs vs. Political Beliefs

    ,

    I have been thinking about this for a while.

     

    I think it is important when talking about legislative policy and our beliefs to ask ourselves this question:

    Do I actually believe in this strongly enough to force it upon others through legislative action, or is it just a personal belief?

     

    I am okay with someone believing anything he or she wants to. When that person (or group of people, for that matter) starts to force it upon others through legislative action, however, that is when I start having a problem with it. 

     

    To quote Leonard Read, “Let anyone do anything, so long as his actions are peaceful; limit government to keeping the peace.” Let’s do away with all of this nonsense legislation that does not have to do with peacekeeping. (Though, admittedly, I am willing to take it farther than that, but I will leave that for another time.)