The Message is the Same: THERE IS ONLY ONE TRUTH

Economics has lead me to believe in liberty. The ideas that have been fighting against coercion since the dawn of man promoting the life of any man.

The lessons from economics are simple. Free trade is needed to allow mankind to flourish and deny the pains which are poverty, famine, and death(not that death is a bad thing, but an early death such as the loss of innocent blood). Free trade spreads liberalism which denies any type of servitude, warfare, or coercive action. It is the ability for mankind to interact with each other and to increase their own satisfaction in life. Man lives only to increase his welfare and through trade with each other are we able to increase our own welfare and that of our families & friends.

The lessons from Christianity are simple. Jesus Christ gave us one law to follow, Love one another. Love is the simple answer that can and has changed the world. Love conquers hate. Love enables mutual, satisfactory interactions between individuals while Hate brings servitude, warfare, and a coercion. The Christian Church's message has been to speak out against Hate and to promote Love. This is the message that is spread and at the foundation of the Church is the institutions of friends & families.

The message from economics is that we, those who understand liberalism, must spread the word promoting liberty to whomever we can allowing for material wealth to spread to the corners of the earth increasing the welfare of all the citizens of the world.
The message from Christianity is that we, Christians, must spread the word that Jesus Christ has conquered death, conquered sin, and freed all the citizens of the world from all forms of control through his Love for us. All that is asked is we Love everyone such as He Loved us.
There is only one message; only one truth. Love will set us free and by love you do not create rules to deny the opportunity for an individual to interact with another.

TWO VIDEOS one from the Acton Institute and the second from Karol: A Man Who Became Pope (a touching movie everyone should watch, religious or not)

Tax Freedom Day

Today we celebrate Tax Freedom Day. This is the last day of the year we work to pay off all the taxes that are taken from us by the government. Thanks to The Tax Foundation for the info...
and to celebrate our freedom, they even made a song.


I had thought about it and thought today wouldn't be complete without a little tune from the Beatles:

Liberty Fund has an Interactive Room Too Good Not to Share

AS POSTED ON GMU ECONOMICS SOCIETY BLOG

Most know Liberty Fund for their catalog of books and online library. Now how about a chance to tour their online interactive GOODRICH ROOM. The room's walls have different names throughout history that have helped lead the argument on Liberty. From the Amagi and Gilgamesh to the Declaration of Independence. Each historical figure opens a new tab with a small historical note and its importance for liberty.

If you knew about the catalog but did not know about the online library, then it is time to get acquainted. It is a large database of online materials and difficult to decide where to begin. Liberty Fund has made easier and given us a starting point, HERE. You can log on to create reading lists, share with others, and view other members lists. Can it get any better?

ENJOY!

Individual rights sold by a Vote

The nation appears to be fascinated with politics for the past month since it is the primaries...
It is almost like watching a sports game as the country splits itself to cheer for their favorite politician. They chant, they boo, and they donate money. I thought this was interesting, but then I thought of why we vote for someone.

We vote for someone to go to Washington D.C. and vote for us. Well then am I not handing my rights off to that person to vote for how they see fit? Would I lend my house or car to someone and get it returned to me in four years after they had used it as they saw fit? Of course, if they total my car I may never give it back to them, but who lends their car or house to someone they hardly know? It would be called irrational.

Well, I am thinking that it would be irrational to lend my rights out to someone else who does not share the same beliefs as me. Therefore, politician, you must be a practicing Catholic with free market ideals. You must have a passion for liberty and a hatred towards policies that do anything besides allow free movement of goods. Yes, this includes immigrants (they are a good; its called labor). You must wish to decrease the power of government, privatize roads & schools, and demolish welfare. You must love watching Rambo & Rocky movies and can discuss the economic brilliance of the two.

Is there no candidate that fits my criteria?
For Shame And They(the candidates) Expect Me To Pass Them My Rights

Always begins with One; Is he the one?

I won't say much here. Former government employee wants to own a large dog. In fact, he owns two which are considered by the government of China to be owned illegally. Illegal because of their size. The court system has stopped his crusade this far, but as he tells it, he will continue according to the laws of China and take it to the Supreme Court.
This is a man determined to own his large dogs against a government who rules against ownership of not only large dogs but also more than one. This is not even going into the topic of internet censorship.
Good article. Good man.

For those who fought with the war cry "Freedom" President Lincoln was not one.

ORIGINALLY POSTED ON GMUECONSOCIETY.BLOGSPOT.COM
I am sure everyone has heard it by now since the outcry of
most Americans was an uproar at a statement by Ron Paul on President Lincoln.
Last year, the GMU Economics Society was fortunate to have a lecturer, Thomas DiLorenzo on this issue. Unfortunately we do not have any audio or video of the lecture, but I will link to support the argument as best as I can. I wish only to place some evidence to those looking to comprehend Ron Paul's statement. Not endorsing any politicians as the Econ Society, although the members may have full support for whomever they wish, but do wish to clarify a statement in which many Americans seem to be growing upset towards.

What is taught to children?

• That President Lincoln's nickname was Honest Abe, yet we understand that most politicians do lie. Why should we view him differently?
  The American Indians are led to believe so...
  
• Lincoln saved the Union therefore denying the South the right to secession, yet when Jefferson had installed an embargo on trade with the British the Northeastern states met in convention for secession led by U.S. Senator Timothy Pickering
• Note: Lincoln states he is against state secession in his first Inaugural Address:
  

  But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.

  It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.

• Lincoln had abolished slavery, yet in his first Inaugural Address he states:
  

  I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

I leave it to you to decide if Lincoln was as good as we were taught he was, or if he is just another politician that lies, cheats, and steals.
I end with a link to a blog by Mister Snitch! Who does a great job of linking to valid sources to go with his argument on the bad press for Lincoln.

Saving the Environment: No need for government

If you did not know, today the U.S. government had passed their energy bill. This is supposed to jumpstart the use from petroleum fuel to bio-friendly fuels. Thank you government for all your hard work in passing a bill that is useless except to halt the choices of your own citizens.

PETA's efforts have failed in halting the amount of middle class citizens from buying chicken from KFC; should the U.S. government get involved in order to promote the practice of fast food chicken services? If your answer is no, then what is the difference between the government passing a law with chickens to passing a law with fuels.

There have always been alternatives to oil. We may not use these alternatives, but the reason is that it is too costly. The same reason why PETA's effort fail with KFC. Their chicken is cheap and to go to PETA friendly substitute is more costly. If their celebrity friends such as Paul McCartney and Pamela Anderson would pay me the difference I would happily stop eating at KFC; THIS IS NOT A CALL FOR GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES IN ANY MANNER. Notice that Pam nor Paul HAVE NOT given money to me or anyone else to stop eating only raised their voice in a cheap protest that hardly costs them.

The new law makes it costlier to maintain of life that we have; the cheaper one and replaces it with the more costly. Is this the work of business lobbying allowing for government rules to go in favor? It appears so since we know through Ludwig von Mises that

[r]estrictive action on the other hand is always advantageous for the privileged group and disadvantageous for those whom it excludes from the market. It always raises the price per unit and therefore the total net proceeds of the privileged group. The losses of the excluded group are not taken into account by the privileged group.

From this we can judge that the government must be giving the blessing to one at the cost of the others. Thank you government.

Why do we have alternatives? Naturally, businesses want to make money and are always searching for the best method; at least, this is the popular stereotype. Thus there must have been alternatives although not cheap alternatives since no one was using them. This law allows for the more expensive alternatives to be cheaper only because their is a law made up by certain individuals to solve a problem that they define.
No, there is no need for such laws. This is just a disgrace and an abuse of power.

Note: this does not necessarily mean that the government is hurting one business at the cost of the others such as in oil giants. Rather, it may be the case that they all agreed to this law as it keeps each in line to searching for alternatives away from foreign oils. This would mean that the cost was transferred to the average citizen who must now PAY more for his fuel. Bio-friendly fuels were coming. It was inevitable, but the law is a disgrace. Atlas Shrugged could be rewritten with Hank Rearden as the bad guy, with his Rearden Steel benefiting from the government law that benefit the few at the cost of the Many.

Shame, Shame on you U.S. Government for increasing the costs to the many rather than having the product improved to be better suited for us all. Shame.

I did not discuss the issues with lightbulbs or most of the energy, but I think the broad case here makes its case in each argument.

Silly Bolivian; Why I stopped watching the Daily Show...

I flipped the channel to Comedy Central and found an interesting person being interviewed by Jon Stewart. None other than the Nationalist Bolivian President, Evo Morales.

It is easy to speak about life and caring for mankind, yet asking for government intervention is not the answer to salvation. The lower class look towards government to assist them with the complaints that society is holding them down and Evo is unlike any of the lower class. He dreams that government is the savior and empowered with his position as President has nationalized the gas industry, subsidized other industries, and believes in the end the money will end in the hands of the poor natives of Bolivia. This is not the first time it has been tried Evo get over yourself and learn to be a better farmer so that you can produce more food as PRODUCTION increases worker wages, not government subsidization.

Jon Stewart appeared to support Evo in his performance as President of Bolivia. Applauding and commenting that Evo had completed the promises he had made while campaigning within 8 months of his election; promises filled with the nationalization of Bolivia's resources.
Evo sat proud of his accomplishments even commenting on how much money was now in the hands of the government due to the nationalization of the gas industry. Of course there is an increase of money going to the government since it now owns most of the industry. What kind of idiot would have expected less?

I am not impressed with Evo. I feel for my family still in Bolivia and hope that one day they can all become citizens of the United States; the nation in which Jon Stewart liked to say holds 'rigged' elections. Thanks Jon, we know that elections are flawed haven't you heard of the field of public choice?

Yes, I no longer watch the Daily Show. The show is not dull only to much to left for my own taste although the Colbert Report is incredibly fun to watch as it has broken wrists and water fights with billionaire guests. In the end it all goes back to the Bolivian. Silly Bolivian, government intervention takes away individual rights... to think he said that he knew about rights at the beginning of the interview.

Why Transformers was better than 300

Yes, I said it. Transformers was better than 300. A little late to write this but lets have it, I am never on time as it is.
300, the movie about Thermopylae and the 300 Spartans. Disappointing as it lacked storyline as it was extremely predictable filled with sex scenes that were pointless. I'll give it to them for the scene at the Oracle, that is how the Oracle originally worked, but the marital sex was pointless as he was not turned on by her but to the mere fact he was a "free man". A "free man" who did not choose to be a fighter nor a Spartan. A "free man" who only had one choice throughout the movie, bow down to Xerxes or have to fight for his kingdom. Hey have to call it. When you have no choice towards your profession or lifestyle, it is not freedom. A shame for everyone to believe that only through the State can you achieve Freedom.
Transformers, corny throughout the movie, but more depth in the storyline than 300. Why did the car choose Sam should have been the question in the beginning? What is it the Decepticons are after should have been the next question. Of course, we should have been able to foretell what they were since the displayed it in the beginning of the movie with Sam. Yet the plot of Transformers had something that 300 lacked. Cooperation, innovation, and a better message.
Let us define the different versions of Freedom
In 300, Freedom is to live under the state you are used to.
In Transformers, Freedom is the ability to choose b/w life and death; between good or evil and not allowing others to make that decision for you.
How about Innovation?
300, Innovation was to fight at Thermopylae as to create a small pass where the 300 could hold off the entire Persian Army.
Transformers, the military overcame and adapted to the situation learning from each battle with the Decepticons of what they could do to cause harm to the giant robots; changing the battle area from one place to another to allow themselves a strategic advantage. Heck even the Decepticons overcame their disadvantages by shutting down the communications link throughout the world. This isn't to say that Xerxes never overcame anything, but according to the movie he had to wait until a crippled Spartan had leaked information about a pass so that he could attack the Spartans in a new fashion.
As for the message,
300 claimed that men died for a reason which would be Freedom thus encouraging all of Greece to unite to fight against the Persian Army.
Transformers completely took all the work 300 and worked it into 300's ending. Instead of their being death to cause people to unite, they found their was one cause that those with differences can unite for; Freedom.
Truth is the actual history of Thermopylae is a time when Greece unified itself to overcome the Persians. The true story was that like the movie Transformers. The most disciplined force of ancient times, the Spartans, with only a handful of themselves assembled with other Greeks and held the land battle. The Athenians, greatly outnumbered in the sea, led a sea attack against Persian ships to curtail them from sending reinforcements behind the land units on the pass.

Face it, 300 was disapointing, so they gave us Transformers.

Too long forgone

So I have been away for too long. I have been in seminars throughout the summer. Don't worry I will comment on each so that others may learn about each institution their summer seminar and whether it is worth the time or not.

My summer of seminars began with the History of Economics seminar at George Mason University followed by the History of Economics Society annual conference which was held at George Mason University this year. The summer ended with a weekend conference in Connecticut held by the Acton Institute. Over all, I spend most of my days in lectures arriving back to the room only to debate roommates and others who wished to express their views.

My experience and critiques of the seminars will be blogged on the GMU Economics Society blog which is beginning soon. Not that I am an expert, only wish to share the info to allow others the chance to attend these great events that promote economics, ethics, philosophy, politics, individual rights(which included separate from philosophy just to add emphasis), and even religion.

Can not be Pro-Life and Pro-War

So I slack on my blog entries. Luckily for me this is not a popular blog. Perhaps because my arguments have been said over and over again. I have never said anything new, only things I had read elsewhere.

But I am bothered. The religious are Pro-Life therefore against any action that takes away life. For this reason abortion is an important political issue which I completely understand, but for the same people who are against abortion yet support any type of war seems to be a contradiction. Can you support a war and be Pro-Life? Wars bring death, and war is promoted by those politicians who we vote for. As war is the decision of those elected officials it only makes sense for war to be a major political issue for the religious. Yet abortions, with laws or without are always at the hands of the woman in labor. If she is going to choose to have an abortion she will find a way, there is hardly anything law can do to prevent this. Yet, war which brings death is caused by the elected officials.

You can not be Pro-Life and Pro-War. If you support life then you support all life, you can not pick and choose between which lives you support.

Economics and Batman

I had to link to Mises.org for this fantastic comic. What better comic hero than Batman, who fights for freedom to fight in honor of one of history's heroes against those who deprive others of freedom, Mises. Perhaps more later...

War is good for the economy?

I have returned to this debate more than once, and this weekend appeared to be when everyone rose the question. Why, I do not have the slightest idea, but the question was asked... er the statement was made. "War is good for the economy".

Their points?

1. That war creates more jobs
2. More jobs mean more families with an income
3. More income means more money is spent
4. The money spent creates more jobs

Cute thought and true, although the market model that they are viewing is incomplete.

Who is the main consumer during times of war? The government.
Who has raised the amount purchased? The government.
If you begin to spend more than you have what do you do? Work more to raise income.
What does government do to spend more? Usually raise taxes.
(I leave it at this point, but today the government does not increase income while increasing spending which causes a higher deficit. This is able to be done under a fiat system. One of the many arguements against it, but for my point I will leave it at raising taxes.)

Therefore, citizens receive jobs to gain income to support their family, yet their taxes are increased taking away from the income for their family. The new jobs do not neccessarily help the citizens, but did increase the amount of revenue the government received.

It returns to the same arguement as government subsidies. The government taxes all citizens and gives a subsidy to farmers to not grow as much of a product. The overbundance of the product is disposed of rather than sold. In World War II, excess military equipment was disposed in order to maintain the high level of employment for the citizens. Thus, citizens work and accomplish nothing. A return to Sisphysm, which I spoke of before. A time of full employment, but never having anything to show for it. The citizens work hard; are taxed taking from their own income; the tax is used to purchase the goods they made, but then the good is disposed of just to keep them employed. Is this really efficient? And we haven't even begun to discuss the loss of citizens who are underpaid fighting in the war...

Online Gambling

I am a little upset by James Martin from Virginia Progressive. He writes some great posts, keeps the blogosphere informed upon the political races, but sometimes I believe he takes a step into the wrong side.
On Saturday, James commented upon a new law, which supposedly "cripples online gambling". Why was the bill proposed for the law in the first place, well taking from the Virginia Progressive website:

The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Robert W. Goodlatte (R-Va.), said he opposes all gambling, citing its “ill effects on society,” but particularly Internet gambling, which led him to draft the legislation in the summer.
“All the problems that manifest themselves with gambling, even in heavily regulated states, are even worse on the Internet,” Goodlatte said yesterday. “There are family problems, bankruptcy problems, gambling addiction, gambling by minors, using gambling to launder money for criminal and terrorist organizations and organized crime. It does not help our society.“

A law imposed on the rest of the American society because someone believed it to cause damage. He does not note the happiness people receive from gambling only the negative points against the action. Have we not heard this before, say with alcohol? People will gamble. They enjoy it. The internet does not have boundaries nor see national borders.

I do not gamble. I do not even smoke, but I am for smoking. Why not, if there is a call for a nonsmoking bar I am sure someone will open a bar that they do not allow smoking; no need for regulation. The point is if I did smoke or gamble, I would want to be allowed the opportunity to. It is my earnings, who is a congressman to tell me what I can do with my own self gain?

Let us note that just because a law is passed does not mean the action will stop. During prohibition the alcoholics still found ways to drink. The cost had rose to drink, but as they did enjoy the alcohol they did pay the high price. For gambling, I'd expect the same turn of events. A high price causes more gains giving gamblers a larger incentive. Once again the government attacks supply believing if they attack the suppliers they can halt the demand.