Tag Archives: Liberty

Commentary

Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams are my two favorite living economists

3 Comments

UPDATE: Welcome visitors from Free Canuckistan! Thanks for the link, Binks!

Let’s see some of their recent posts.

Is Obama’s weak foreign policy going to get us killed?

My biggest concern about Jimmy Carter II is for the nations that rely on us to protect their liberties. Our armed forces project strength abroad that safeguards the liberties of our allies against our enemies. Thomas Sowell just nails this point in his post about the dangers of weak foreign policy, a point most of us don’t even think about.

As if it is not enough to turn cutthroats loose to cut throats again, we are now contemplating legal action against Americans who wrung information about international terrorist operations out of captured terrorists.

Does nobody think ahead to what this will mean– for many years to come– if people trying protect this country from terrorists have to worry about being put behind bars themselves? Do we need to have American intelligence agencies tip-toeing through the tulips when they deal with terrorists?

…Repercussions extend far beyond issues of the day. It is bad enough that we have a glib and sophomoric narcissist in the White House. What is worse is that whole nations that rely on the United States for their security see how easily our president welshes on his commitments. So do other nations, including those with murderous intentions toward us, our children and grandchildren.

Who caused the subprime mortgage crisis?

Thomas Sowell writes about who caused the subprime mortgage crisis. And he has a new book out about it, too!

Beginning in the 1990s, getting a higher proportion of the American population to become homeowners became the political holy grail of government housing policies. Increasing home ownership among minorities and other people of low or moderate incomes was also part of this political crusade.

Because banks are regulated by various agencies of the federal government, it was easy to pressure them to lend to people that they would not otherwise lend to– namely, people with lower incomes, poorer credit ratings and little or no money for a conventional down payment of 20 percent of the price of a house.

Such people were referred to politically as “the underserved population”– as if politicians know who should and who shouldn’t get mortgages better than people who have spent their careers making mortgage-lending decisions.

My own comprehensive post on this topic is Democrats caused the recession and Republicans tried to stop it.

What happens when the secular left undermines morality?

I’ve blogged about how atheism cannot ground the rationality of moral values, moral duties and moral accountability. The presumption of materialism is inconsistent with rationality, consciousness and free will which are necessary pre-conditions for non-ephemeral morality. So what happens to civil society when atheists push religion out of the public square? Walter Williams explains.

To see men sitting whilst a woman or elderly person was standing on a crowded bus or trolley car used to be unthinkable. It was common decency for a man to give up his seat. Today, in some cities there are ordinances requiring public conveyances to set aside seats posted “Senior Citizen Seating.” Laws have replaced common decency. Years ago, a young lady who allowed a guy to have his hand in her rear pocket as they strolled down the street would have been seen as a slut. Children addressing adults by first names was unacceptable.

You might be tempted to charge, “Williams, you’re a prude!” I’d ask you whether high rates of illegitimacy make a positive contribution to a civilized society. If not, how would you propose that illegitimacy be controlled? In years past, it was controlled through social sanctions like disgrace and shunning. Is foul language to or in the presence of teachers conducive to an atmosphere of discipline and respect necessary for effective education? If not, how would you propose it be controlled? Years ago, simply sassing a teacher would have meant a trip to the vice principal’s office for an attitude adjustment administered with a paddle. Years ago, the lowest of lowdown men would not say the kind of things often said to or in front of women today. Gentlemanly behavior protected women from coarse behavior. Today, we expect sexual harassment laws to restrain coarse behavior.

I personally feel alienated by how impolite, unchaste, unromantic and unchivalrous my generation has become.

News

What is Obama working on instead of making Americans safer?

1 Comment

Below is the video of the new Republican ad that highlights all the recent bungling by Obama on national security and foreign policy. (H/T Gateway Pundit)

The Patriot Room has more on this effective ad.

Check out this post on Obama’s opposition to waterboarding. And this one of Obama’s military spending cuts. A general article listing the administration’s failures on national security and foreign policy. And an essay I wrote on the conservative doctrine of peace through strength. And don’t forget last week’s Friday night funny on Obama’s plan to undo the effects of Bush’s successful national security policies.

Robert Spencer over at Jihad Watch has this post up about how Obama overruled the CIA and FBI in order to release Gitmo detainees into the United States.

Excerpt:They told him these guys were dangerous jihadists, and Obama doesn’t seem to care. They’re coming to your neighborhood whether you or the FBI or DHS like it or not. Relax. What could go wrong?

Spencer asks: “How about putting them up in the White House?”

So, what are Democrats focused on instead of national security?

First, Democrats are busy restricting free speech to protect the hurt feelings of their special interest groups. Here is a speech by Representative Trent Franks about the recent thought crime hate crime bill that the Democrats just passed in the House.

Excerpt:

In fact, Madam Speaker, the essence of America is that all people should be treated with the same respect and should be protected completely equally under the law. To break up people into different categories and say that one group is more worthy of protection than another and then to grant special protection to some groups and not to others, fundamentally diminishes the protection of all of the other remaining groups.

…The First Amendment of our Constitution was crafted because our Founding Fathers recognized that the freedom of thought and belief is the cornerstone of every other freedom. It is the foundation of liberty itself, because, without it, every other freedom, including the freedom of speech, becomes meaningless.

…Not only does this legislation require law enforcement to investigate an individual’s motivations–those are the thoughts and beliefs that seemingly motivate him or her to commit a crime–but it would expand the scope of the prosecution to include individuals or members of organizations or religious groups whose ideas or words may have influenced a person’s thoughts or motivations when he committed a crime.

…Madam Speaker, this would have a devastating and chilling effect on free speech in America. Who could blame pastors, educators or any other cultural leaders if they chose to cease expressing their beliefs for fear of being thrown in prison and charged with a Federal crime? This is not rhetorical speculation. It has already happened in the case of the Philadelphia 11 and in other cases. In the Philadelphia 11 case, 11 individuals were jailed, and they faced $90,000 in fines and 47 years in prison for simply speaking the gospel openly and publicly.

Democrats have to be divisive, and pit one group against another. That is how they get elected – by promising all of their victims government-run salvation from their “enemies”. They thrive on anger, divisiveness, victimization, blame-fixing and resentment.

Second, the Democrats are working hard to raise the unemployment rate by attacking small businesses.

Today’s Washington Post has a front page story: “Small Businesses Brace for Tax Battle,” that catalogues the burden small businesses will face under the President’s massive $4 trillion budget which raises taxes by more than $1.4 trillion.

Gail Johnson, the subject of the Post’s story, is a former pediatric nurse who’s spent “20 years building a chain of preschools and after-school programs that accommodate sick children so working parents can keep their jobs,” but since, “like most small-business owners, Johnson reports her profit on her personal tax return,” she’ll see her taxes go up under the President’s plan – big time.

The WaPo’s article says this:

In a typical year, Johnson’s federal tax bill would be about $120,000.  But starting in 2011, the higher marginal rates would add about $13,000 a year, Hurst said.  Capping the value of itemized deductions at 28 percent would add another $10,000, for a total increase of $23,000.

And Johnson’s tax bill stands to grow dramatically if Obama were to revive a plan to apply Social Security tax to income over $250,000 instead of capping it at the current $106,800.  Because Johnson is an employee and an employer, she would have to pay both portions of the tax, Hurst said, tacking another $30,000 onto her bill.

Johnson said such an increase would force her to consider scaling back operations.

Why do Democrats complain so much about outsourcing and “the rich”? They are the ones who cause businesses to shut down, downsize, relocate overseas or outsource. They push anti-business policies, like tax hikes, card check, global warming regulations, tariffs, etc. If you want more jobs, then make business ownership profitable. Is that so hard to understand?

Commentary

A brief introduction to the blind faith religion of Marxism

1 Comment

The American Thinker has this post up explaining the blind faith of Marxism. (H/T Douglas Groothuis)

Marx thought that value was proportional to the labor spent in creating a product:

Marx claimed that all products contain value that is directly proportional to the amount of labor embodied within them. He was wrong. All the rest of Marxism is based entirely on this mistaken and falsifiable premise.

That’s clearly wrong. The price of products varies depending on supply and demand!

Marx thought that the free market would create monopolies:

Marxists claim that the operations of markets have a natural tendency to spawn monopolies. They call this “monopoly capitalism.” In reality, markets have a natural tendency to break up and undermine monopolies. Almost all monopolies under capitalism are those set up by governments stifling and interfering in the operations of markets.

That’s clearly wrong. Government regulation is needed to insulate monopolies from competition. And in capitalism, capitalists agree that government should take an active role in destroying monopolies and fostering competition, in order to give consumers choices. When consumers can choose, producers have to add value and reduce prices. Socialism, on the other hand, allows consumers one choice: the state-run firm.

Marx had no idea what incentives and laws were needed in order to foster conditions in which entrepreneurs would want to create wealth:

Marxists and socialists in general care a lot about the distribution of material wealth. But they have no idea how to bring about the creation of the material wealth that they wish to redistribute. They just assume it all gets produced all by itself. That is why people in communist regimes starve.

Wrong again!

Marx believed that capitalism was bad for workers.

Marxists claim that workers are oppressed in capitalist societies. Workers in communist societies always try to sneak out into capitalist societies. No one in South Korea is trying to sneak into North Korea. The Berlin Wall was not built to keep West Germans from sneaking into East Germany’s collective farms. Cubans in Florida do not steal boats to seek asylum in Cuban collective farms.

Why is it bad to encourage people to take risks, start their own companies and hire workers? Isn’t it better for for workers to have a choice of employer, so that they can leave if their working conditions or remuneration are unacceptable? How do people leave their employer in Marxism? Oh yeah – by firing squad or by jumping the wall.

But what about companies? Aren’t they all owned by greedy, colluding capitalists?

Marxists claim that capitalists do not work and that workers do not own capital. That is why they comprise “social classes.” But nearly all capitalists work, often in work days with very long hours. Meanwhile, a huge portion of capital is held by workers themselves through their pension funds and other institutional investment intermediaries.

…Marxists claim that businesses are owned by a small closed clique of capitalists. Actually, most businesses are “public,” meaning they are owned by shareholders and anyone at all can be a shareholder in them.

But isn’t capitalism opposed to democracy?

Marxists claim that capitalism cannot be democratic. But every single democratic society on earth is predominantly capitalist. Not a single communist regime was ever democratic. Communists take power via military coups and military conquest, not via elections.

But isn’t violence used against people in order to preserve capitalism?

Marxists claim that capitalists use violence to protect their perquisites and privileges. In truth, Marxists in power use violence to protect their perquisites and privileges. They use violence to suppress opposition wherever they manage to seize power, including violence against opposition groups of workers. It is conservatively estimated that 100 million people were killed by Marxism and by Marxists in the twentieth century.

But aren’t workers less well off in capitalist economies?

Marxists think that only things matter in economics, meaning tangible products, and so services do not. They believe that big products are more important than small products, big industries being more important than small industries. They also believe that consumer goods are superfluous and should not be produced much. All those ideas are why the quality of life and the standard of living are so miserable under communist regimes. In wealthy countries, small- and medium-size enterprises are the main engines for producing wealth.

But aren’t people poorer and less free in capitalist economies?

Marxists claim that under Marxism everyone receives according to his needs and contributes according to his capabilities. In reality, under Marxism everyone receives according to whatever the entrenched party apparatchiks decide their needs are, usually sub-sustenance levels of consumption, and the same people decide what are your abilities, generally assumed to be your ability to work endlessly at whatever you are told to do without getting paid much. To put this differently, in the absence of positive incentives, no one is capable of doing anything and everyone’s needs are infinite.

But isn’t a centrally-planned economy with fixed prices better than a free market capitalist economy?

Marxists think that “experts” can tell what needs to be produced. They cannot. That is why Marxist experts produce starvation. In some cases Marxist starvation has produced cannibalism. There is not a single Marxist scholar or expert on earth who could produce a pencil by himself.

But letting people earn money based on what they do leads to lower productivity, right?

Marxists believe that economic incentives do not matter. That is why they think there is no need to pay people more for working hard or exerting effort. It is enough to appeal to their “class interests.” That is why people starve under communism.

But in a Marxist economy, everyone is equal, right?

Marxists pretend to be in favor of the working class collectively owning all property. In reality Marxists always steal the property of members of the working class and turn it over to well-paid party apparatchiks.

But in capitalist economies, when two parties freely agree to exchange items of value for money, one of them is oppressing the other, right?

Marxists believe that in every voluntary transaction, one side wins and the other loses, and so it is impossible for two sides to profit from it. That is why they think you should be told what to buy and how much you should pay for it.

But capitalists go all around the world imposing their free market ideology through military force, right?

Marxists claim that capitalist countries engage in imperialism. But since World War II the largest empires of imperialist conquest were those headed by Marxist regimes.

Marxists believe that there are no real conflicts of interest between the workers living in different countries and speaking different languages or coming from different cultures. That is without a doubt the very stupidest idea of all coming from Marxism. In any case, that is why Marxism is generally spread only via military conquest.

This article is one to e-mail to all your friends who voted for the Marxist Obama. Obama’s Marxism was well known to everyone who took the time to read his books, and to read about his past actions and policies. Now we are going to be governed by someone who knows less about economics than Al Gore knows about climate science.

Maybe one day Obama will release his grades, so we can finally find out which of them is smarter.