When Banks = Government

I recently came across Matt Taibbi's feature "The Great American Bubble Machine." In this article he examines the existentially corrupt relationship between banks and government:

The formula is relatively simple: Goldman positions itself in the middle of a speculative bubble, selling investments they know are crap. Then they hoover up vast sums from the middle and lower floors of society with the aid of a crippled and corrupt state that allows it to rewrite the rules in exchange for the relative pennies the bank throws at political patronage.

This is a phenomenal piece because Taibbi begins with the right questions in mind. The default assumption for most media analysis is that the old policies were flawed and the question is how to better control the economy. This article suggests that the real problem is the government-banking complex, in which rent-seeking banks and corporations can exploit our system - if they have power.

The relevance of this observation is downplayed as the majority* of the country, towing the Obama party line, demands more regulation on banks. In banking fashion, this will of course come down to a mere 10,000 page bill in Congress; complete with plenty of garbage to hide the "riders" and amendments attached to create more loopholes. Just wait until there is a carbon bubble, where every credit is being traded 20 times before it reaches a consumer. You'll wish you hadn't gone along.

Celebrity-In-Chief

Candidate Obama developed his incredible star power into a valuable tool during his campaign, and now that President Obama's hundredth day in office is approaching, it is clearly serving a new purpose: earning him political capital. The mainstream media is more valuable to him than ever; the recent AP poll showed upwards of 60% in agreement that the country is on the "right track." Every news article references statistics about the percentage spread of his approval rating versus the last 6 presidents or the size of the spread between right and left like contributors on Sportscenter. Likewise, we all know who they're rooting for, and the "facts" they report can be made to say almost anything.

Did the Tea Parties Hurt or Help?

The Tax Day Tea Parties were surprising on many levels. Our members that went to the Seattle Tea Party agreed on at least one thing: this was not at all the crowd, or even the event we had expected. Our expectation was based on our idea of a Tea Party as a Ron Paul fundraiser minus the Ron Paul part; granted, plenty of crazies, but at least people of the libertarian persuasion.

More often, however, we instead heard slurs about liberals, Christian nationalism, and even an original country jingle. I am still impressed that so many people attended, and I hope the movement continues to grow. That being said, the media had a field day with these "teabaggers." Every major news source ridiculedLikewise, the AP's photos of these events, or at least those published in popular places, were of people in good old 'merican flag attire, holding signs with painfully original slogans like "LET ME HAVE MY KIDS BEFORE YOU TAX THEM!" In our case, being in Seattle, the "unexpecteds" came in the form of frustrated opponents of Obama chanting "USA!" and booing Obama's merciless socialist tyranny as if John McCain himself were on stage.

Our crowd was there, of course, but the only person who gave us any coverage was Janet Napolitano, who consequently described protesters (especially veterans) as potential right-wing militia members, later apologizing that it was probably just a departmental Freudian slip).

I am glad so many people are persuaded by the libertarian economic agenda, but I am not impressed with the caliber of advocacy they are presenting to public on our behalf.

Dangers of the Death Penalty

Bob Barr

The internet loves to destroy the tradition of not judging books by their covers. As I clearly said, I was afraid of this guy as a Libertarian candidate. His ex-neocon status made me wonder if McCain just might be OK. I have to say he doesn't make a good first impression, and I'm not sure I "got" where he was coming from for a while. Looking over the evidence against him:

The Defense of Marriage Act was actually a truly conservative solution to an important problem. It just sounds like Pat Robertson brand bullshit. It actually would have removed the issue of marriage from the Federal level and respected states' rights to define marriage as they see fit. That would mean conservative states could have their barely secular man-woman marriages, Utah could give every man a harem, and California could allow gay disabled Wiccan illegal aliens. Liberty at its finest.

Secondly, I was a hardcore conservative for roughly the first Bush term. I would have voted for higher spending to fight drugs and more authority. To be honest I wasn't fully convinced that the dug war should end until I researched drug policy for an Original Advocacy. My primary education on the subject came from the Cato Institute's handbook for Congress on the War on Drugs. I think Bob Barr had a very similar turning point when he joined the Libertarian Party. I don't believe he will waste our money on more bullshit drug policy anymore.

The impeachment of Clinton was actually legitimate, though unnecessary. Barr certainly had an agenda in supporting it, but it's really irrelevant - it just makes him more likely to call Clinton on his mistakes. They were still mistakes that needed to be accounted for, even if was somewhat of a show trial. Public officials cannot be allowed to commit perjury, and I'm glad Barr stands for that.

There are a number of things where you can choose whether or not to cut him any slack. A change of heart? It's his best excuse, but I can attribute to the fact that it's easy, and almost natural, for even Neocons to wake up to true conservatism.

He also seems to be rather moderate (compared to his trainer - I mean, running mate, Wayne Allyn Root) which could actually mean a smoother transition, if by some miracle he became president. A little sensibility is a lot to ask, I know, but withdrawing from NATO and the U.N. overnight might not work out so well. We sure wouldn't want to blow our incredible opportunity this year.

Nationals Topic Research

I am going to have a hard time arguing the affirmative, but that's the price one pays for being opinionated. Luckily there are great arguments on both sides that don't require me to practice my poker face.

The social contract is in in place to serve us, not to restrict us.The resolution makes it seem as though the affirmative is trying to take away freedom, and such a suggestion carries a range of logical and sensational reactions. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy best explains this distinction.

Economic freedom is an example of negative liberty, or a type of freedom that is granted merely by the fact that nothing stands in the way of you doing something. Negative liberty is implied solely by the lack of restriction. Positive liberty, however, is defined as to take control of one's life and realize one's fundamental purposes.

In other words, negative liberty allows opportunity by simply maintaining absence of authority, while positive liberty is process of using things like government to create opportunity, and therefore create liberty. You could think of it as progressive and regressive liberty.

This surprises people: anarchy is NOT a condition of maximum liberty. It is maximum liberty, and it is not the optimal level of freedom in a society. This is where I disagree with Ayn Rand and friends - when you allow complete economic freedom, you condone any private action (think monopolies) that results in the destruction of the free market, and therefore individual rights (see Ayn? we're cool).

There is another name for complete anarcho-capitalism: John Locke's 'state of nature'. The social contract exists because people chose not to live in such a state. Social contracts are really just lists of positive liberties that the people want to guarantee.

THE POINT - You can, and should, decrease economic freedom without suffering a net loss of liberty. The question then becomes: to what degree?

Heller raises Hell

It took over 30 years, but the citizens of D.C. managed to avoid being murdered in their happy joyful gun-free city just long enough to get their day in court.

Washington D.C. has done America a great public service, not specifically because of this ruling, but because their failed attempt at controlling gun violence is now the best possible evidence against handgun bans: a case study.

A few things have to be acknowledged to make this legitimate. There is not, and never will be, a causal relationship between gun restrictions and murder rates. Nor is there even a direct correlation. A negative correlation could be achieved if a significant number of guns were taken off the streets, but at this point in American history (those two words are enough) there are enough guns on the street to keep a black market alive forever. D.C's policy tried to exploit this correlation but was defeated by that little exception. As a result, the number of murders more than doubled, while their population continued to shrink. In the 1990s, D.C. officially earned the highest murder rate in the country.

So how do criminals keep their guns? The same way they buy crack - they break the damn law. People (especially those who are either too old or too high-class to remember what is practical for the average person) tend to vote for bullshit ideas that are designed to make them feel good. Politicians like Adrian Fenty know that. An effective plan would entail too high a cost and result in too much police power (you can go ahead and repeal the 2nd amendment at that point).