Why governments can’t make things better for everyone

 

Consider this:

In the absence of coercion, every individual will choose to do only those things—make those exchanges—that he or she feels will improve his or her condition for having undertaken such action.

That is to say, if there is no fraud or coercion, every transaction between two individuals will only be consummated if both participants believe their personal condition will be improved by engaging in the transaction. Both parties walk away "happier" or more "satisfied" as a result of the transaction.

Note: This does NOT mean that both will actually be happier. Individuals sometimes miscalculate in economic transactions just as they do in emotional transactions (such as marriage). But they would only complete the transaction if they sincerely believed (at the time) they will be better off after the transaction than before.

Since such a "free market" transaction always results in an increase in the relative "happiness" or "satisfaction" of each participant (at least at the point of consummation), happiness or satisfaction in society is always maximized by free-market transactions without coercion or fraud.

The only need for coercion is when someone—usually the government—wants a different out come in exchanges than a free market would generally produce.

Note: If government wanted the same outcome as a free market would produce, the government would take no action whatsoever.

Since coercion produces a result in which at least one party to the transaction must take an action that differs from the result a free market would have produced, then at least one party has his or her "happiness" or "satisfaction" reduced rather than increased following the transaction.

THEREFORE, it can be stated conclusively that, while a free market is predicated upon individual actions and individual "happiness" or "satisfaction," the free market, nevertheless, increases the happiness or satisfaction across all individuals and therefore raises society’s level of satisfaction to its highest possible degree.

The coercion of government, on the other hand, can not produce the highest levels of happiness or satisfaction in a society because at least one individual must be less happy or satisfied in each coerced transaction.

Make sense?

An interview with Byron Donalds, candidate for Congress (FL)

I am so pleased to find a fresh new crop of folks who appear to be well-grounded and firmly principled conservatives running for office in 2012. It is especially gratifying to see so many young blacks stepping forward as Republicans and conservatives to take as stand against the Democrat Party and Barack Obama’s constant race baiting.

Here in Minnesota we have Chris Fields challenging far-left Congressman Keith Ellison. In Utah, Mia Love looks to be an outstanding Congressional candidate who will bring fresh ideas to Washington. In Florida, candidate for Senate Deon Long appears to be solidly conservative, and Byron Donalds, running for U.S. Representative, also has his feet firmly planted in conservative principles.

Recently, I had opportunity to interview Byron Donalds. Donalds is running for Congress from Naples, Florida, “because he still believes in the power of the American people and the future of the American dream,” as his Web site says.

On limited government

When I asked Donalds about “limited government” and its implications for Americans, he pulled no punches. He said that he believed “the federal government” should be “restrained by a detailed list of powers” as enumerated in the U.S. Constitution. The federal government, Donalds went on, “should do only what the States and the people lack [the] ability to do” for themselves. Furthermore, he said, the government in Washington “must not decide to do things that the States have chosen not to do.”

“Limited government,” Donalds stated clearly, “in not only important to Americans, it is important to the liberty of all men. An intrusive government erodes liberty….” and it is liberty that, in the final analysis, “creates economic prosperity.”

On free markets

Donalds is affixed in the free market camp. He understands that only the free market offers the best of opportunities to “all people” and the fairest exchange of “the fruits of [their] labor” for the goods and services they need or desire. He also clearly articulated to me that the most broadest opportunity for save and “accumulate” wealth for upward economic mobility also rests on free market principles. He is convinced that only the free market can create lasting jobs and the kind of durable economic growth that will be necessary to pull the U.S. out of its mountain of debt.

He said that the government should refrain from being “a player”—unduly influencing—the free market.

On monetary policy

Equally sound is Donalds’ position on monetary policy. He stated that “the Fed” (Federal Reserve Bank) should have one—and only one—“mandate.” That is to supply the nation with “a stable currency.” The Fed, he stated flatly, should “have nothing to do with controlling inflation.”

On being effective when in office

The candidate articulated a clear method for becoming a change agent in Washington after his election. He clearly recognizes that “the only way [to bring about] real change is [to have] the will of the people behind you.” It is “the will of the people” that allows an officeholder to “resist the political establishment” once inside the beltway.

Like Ronald Reagan, Donalds sees the need for being “clear and frank with the voting public” and that means “consistency” in both “message” and “effort.” As a political pragmatist, he enunciated how the Left (e.g., progressives, liberals) have invested 100 or more years of relatively consistent energy in dragging America into its present economic and political morass. Therefore, overnight change will not be possible, but the change must begin today—before it’s too late.

Summary

My brief interview with Byron Donalds revealed to me a bright, articulate and principled young man with a strong will and the kind of message that I believe can and will galvanize support for the kind of conservative change that these United States need so desperately right now.

If you would like to learn more about Donalds candidacy and his positions, please visit http://www.byrondonalds.com/. Offer your support and, if you live in Florida, offer to be boots on the ground. I know a good campaign can always use more volunteers.

How the GOP can regain its political “brand”

How can the Republican Party (GOP) really distinguish itself from the Democrats?

By taking clear, well-articulated positions for:

1. LIMITED CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT - Retrenching the expanding federal reach, doing away with federal grants-in-aid to state and local governments while simultaneously reducing the federal tax burden so that state and local governments are at greater liberty to do what needs to be done based on local realities (or not do what does not need to be done, as the case may be). Along with this, Congress should take specific action to re-articulate and reinforce states' rights and the return of greater liberty to U.S. citizens.
   
2. FREE MARKETS - Taking a strong and well-articulated stand against corporatism and bailouts for businesses or unions, presenting a new vision for unfettered economic growth to the middle class. This vision should include reducing the regulatory burden on business and industry by granting increased liberty to individuals (the consumers) to decide more about what they want and don't want in products, in services, in their employment and in benefits.
   
3. SOUND MONETARY POLICY - Get control of the Federal Reserve Bank (FRB)  to help re-establish the value of the U.S. Dollar ( USD ), which is being gradually destroyed through inflation since the inception of the Federal Reserve banking system.

On the TSA, bailouts and needless economic interventions

The TSA (Transportation Security Administration) was a G.W. Bush bailout for the airlines because, after 9/11, there was a genuine fear of flying amongst the American public. So, the U.S. government stepped in to give Americans confidence to fly again.

However, all this action did was create a moral hazard for the airlines. Every time there is a failure in TSA's security, the airlines are not be held responsible, the U.S. government is. As a result, there is an ongoing degradation of liberty and the humiliation of the U.S. traveler at the hands of government officials.

If the airlines were responsible for security, there would be competition in security. That competition would drive toward maximum security with minimum damage to the travelers' liberties accompanied by minimum cost and inconvenience, as well.

Some airlines would do better than others. Prices might even be affected by how well airlines do in the security department. All-in-all, there would be improved security at a lower cost—and the travelers would bear all of the cost. The American taxpayer would not be held hostage as the payer of last resort in the event of ongoing failures or the need for new technologies.

Already the Obama administration has handed out favorable contracts for the production of the new x-ray machines and other TSA equipment to manufacturing firms strongly connected to unions. It is just one more way of intervening in the economy where the government need not be present at all.

On ObamaCare’s manipulation of markets

Imagine this:

Obama—”We need to bend the health care cost curve. I want the food industry to cut chocolate sales by 25 percent."

Industry—“But we would lose $100 million from the cutback.”

Obama—“Just raise the price of celery to recoup the $100 million.”

Industry—“Nobody will buy celery at the inflated price.”

Obama—“Not to worry. We'll impose a fine on any family that doesn't buy a sufficient quantity of celery.”

Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it?

Try this:

Obama—“A lot of sick people can't get insurance. I want the industry to cover pre-existing conditions.”

Industry—“But we would lose a fortune if we did.”

Obama—“Just raise the premiums paid by healthy people and sell more policies to those who aren't insured.”

Industry—“If we have to cover pre-existing conditions, healthy people won't buy policies until they're sick.”

Obama—“Not to worry. We'll impose a fine on any family that doesn't buy a policy now.”

---

[Thanks to Robert Levy in the “Cato Policy Report” (March/April 2010)

On the free market “fine” for improper discrimination

"If an employer has an opening that pays $50,000, and a Christian applicant will result in a $51,000 in benefit to the firm while a Muslim applicant will bring in a $55,000 in benefit to the firm, then to discriminate against the Muslim in favor of the Christian will cost the employer $4,000 in potential profits. No government inspector or watchdog agency is required: by definition, the discrimination is automatically "fined" in the free market [through the lower profits].

Not only does the free market catch discrimination [every time] whenever it occurs, but the amount of the ‘fine’ is also exactly proportional to the severity of the discrimination."

Adapted from The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism by Robert P. Murphy.

The same, of course, applies if the discrimination is based on race, color, gender, sexual orientation, age or any other factor.

To the credit of capitalism and free markets

It is to the credit of capitalism and relatively free markets that there are many, many more people living on the earth’s surface today than at the eve of the “industrial revolution,” and that, in the nations that are most advanced in capitalism, virtually all of the people enjoy a more comfortable life than even the well-to-do of earlier ages.

The GOP (Republican Party) has no brand

In 2008, then candidate for RNC chairman, Michael Steele, published his “Blueprint for Tomorrow — En-route to a Republican Revolution,” outlining his view of the future for the Republican Party in the U.S.

My concern at that time was that Steele’s views were too shallow on at least two counts: 1) The “Republican” brand was not “badly tarnished,” it was non-existent, and 2) because there was no “Republican” brand, many of Mr. Steele’s plans would fail.  The party needed a wholesale “house cleaning,” not “reforms” or “improvements in their IT systems.”

Not much has changed since then. By and large, the GOP still has no brand and what brand resurgence they may be enjoying at this moment is due, primarily, to the activism of the Tea Party and libertarian thinkers who have found third-party efforts to be (for the present) somewhat fruitless.

Now, I am a conservative leaning increasingly toward libertarianism. I even count myself still among “Republicans.” I have even read the “Blueprint For Tomorrow — En-route to a Republican Revolution” (“Blueprint”).

As I predicted back in 2009, the Republican Party has benefited in the intervening election cycles from the radical direction the Obama administration and his equally radical Democrat-controlled Congress had been taking us. However, there remains a large difference between benefiting from an externally driven backlash and what the Republican Party really needs.

 

What the GOP needs is an internal revolution

What the GOP truly needs is an internal revolution or, perhaps better and more to the point, a thoroughgoing “house cleaning.”

In “Blueprint,” Steele’s first “key point” was the Republican Party’s “brand is badly tarnished.”

My futile hope was that this was an intentional understatement and perhaps a sign of life from the emerging GOP establishment that Americans were calling for real change and that the Republican Party could and should rally to the fore for liberty, economic growth, sound monetary policy and limited government. It, apparently, was not.

From a commercial marketing standpoint the “Republican” brand is not “badly tarnished.”  The “Republican” brand remains to this day virtually non-existent.

Or, more properly stated: getting folks to buy the “Republican” brand today is akin to getting folks to believe that the New York Yankees of today are the same team as the New York Yankees of the 1950s and ‘60s (when I thought the World Series was “some team getting to play the Yankees at the end of the season”).

No. People today have little or no respect for or trust in the “Republican” brand.

There have not been enough Republicans in the Senate, the House of Representatives, the White House, or even in governors’ mansions over the last 20 years who have taken a solid and forthright stand for anything more substantial than assuring their own re-election that would identify the term “Republican” with anything correlating to a “principle” or an “ideology.”  (I am not saying that there have not been any, I am saying there have not been enough to create a recognizable “Republican” brand.)

 

The Party of competent management?

Steele’s “Blueprint” said, “We were the Party of competent management.”

Yet, I ask: why, then, were the Republicans not wailing more loudly and more incessantly when President George W. Bush (a man I respect for many, many reasons) permitted the Federal Reserve to artificially suppress interest rates well below what a free market would have supported for a period of more than two years?  This action recklessly supported the already badly managed FNMA (Fannie-Mae), FHLMC (Freddie-Mac) and Federal Housing Administration (FHA) mortgage programs that encouraged the promotion of subprime mortgages. (And please, GOP establishment, do not try to tell us that the Republicans have not done their share to support the programs promulgated by FNMA and the like.) The market, thus intoxicated by “easy money,” made bad capital investment choices ranging from real estate through manufacturing and distribution channels and all the way to Wall Street and the capital markets themselves.

Sound-thinking economists were, even then, not silent on the dangers inherent in the housing bubble. However, except for a few somewhat weak attempts to speak up over the years, Republicans have remained content to see “economic growth” — even if it was supported by nothing more than federal policy “hot air,” bad monetary policy, and bad banking.  Instead of these weak attempts, there should have been an incessant howl raised by conscientious Republicans against what was happening. (Of course, the GOP politicians remained enthralled to the campaign monies flowing their way in a near-constant stream from Wall Street firms, their CEOs and bankster cronies, so they could not take principled action.)

You and I both know why there was, for the most part, little more than an occasional “squeak” of warning erupting from the deafening silence among GOP officeholders. And, what little was actually said was not backed by any hard-driving action for effective change.

The fact is, far too many Republicans — just like Democrats — receive significant campaign support from the financial sector.  Indeed, the incestuous relationship between Wall Street investment bankers and Capitol Hill is the single largest reason that so many financial institutions have been granted the “too big to fail” marker and handed bailout money.  And, of course, when high inflation comes our way in the not-too-distant future, it will be the financial sector that reaps the rewards.  Why?  Because the financial sector gets hold of the freshly printed fiat money before price-inflation takes effect.  Therefore, with billions or trillions of dollars of inflationary currency in their hands, they get first option to buy whatever assets they choose at pre-inflation prices. (Nice payback to the politicians’ cronies in the banking and securities industries.)

This is the sickening symbiotic connection between politicians who lack moral anchors or sound principles and a monetary system that can readily be manipulated through a central bank.  No wonder that politicians like Senator Dodd need only five individuals from his home state to support their re-election campaigns while they garner hundreds of thousands of dollars from out-of-state donors.

Can the GOP really say (with a straight face), that they are “the Party of competent management,” when Republicans — just like the Democrats — have allowed the Social Security system to become nothing more than a Ponzi scheme that makes Madoff look like a piker? The only difference between what Madoff did and what the U.S. Congress — Democrats and Republicans — have done with Social Security is that no one has arrested any Congressmen or Senators (yet).  Apparently this is because no matter how immoral or how unconstitutional or how (otherwise) illegal or deceptive an act of Congress might be, it is still “legal.” The fact that Republicans have participated in this — almost to the equal of their Democrat cronies — makes it virtually impossible for the “Republican” brand to mean anything to anybody anymore.

 

The Party best equipped to stand for fiscal restraint and smaller government?

How can the Republicans be “best equipped… to stand squarely for fiscal restraint [and] smaller government”? Refresh our memories, please. We poor folks outside of Washington, DC, are having a really hard time remembering on just what principles the GOP stands for “fiscal restraint” and “smaller government.” Was that with the Patriot Act? With our wars in the Middle East? With the TARP roll-out under George W. Bush?

Oh, we remember a few brave folks who stood up — who really stood for something — against the winds and tides of public opinion. But, even when Ronald Reagan was president, were it not for the strength of his personal will and integrity, there were those Republicans in his staff, cabinet and Congress at the time that would have readily jettisoned his economic policy for some good press and slap on the back.

 

The thing about “brands”

Here is the thing about “brands.”  Brands are not merely “names.”  Behind every outstanding brand is an “idea” or an “ideology.”  People who buy “Michelin” tires over some other brand are not buying “Michelin”; they are buying “safety” or “security.”  People who by a “Rolex” watch over some other brand are not buying “Rolex”; they are “investing” in “prestige” or even “ego satisfaction.”  These associations are built up over years and years.  However, a “brand” that may take decades to build can be destroyed in a week of bad press.

What does the “Republican” brand stand for today?  It stands for nothing.

And the reason it stands for nothing is because for at least the last decade — and likely more than four decades with only spotty exceptions — the great majority of those who bore the title “Republican” have stood for no ideals and no principles. (Oh! Wait! I take that back, most of them have stood for one principle — get re-elected by any means.)

 

On coalition-building

Michael Steele spoke of building “coalitions” and “collaborating and coordinating with center-right think tanks, grassroots organizations, and online networks.” The Republican Party’s present image is so tarnished and so degraded that you may very well have to commence these efforts by stealth—even if the GOP establishment insists on restraining its coalition-building efforts to the “center-right.”

Tell me why any organization that has, in fact, invested in building a solid reputation and “brand” around limited government, free market economics, or sound monetary policy would want to bear the risk of saying that they are “collaborating with” or in any way connected to the Republican Party at this present time?

While some current GOP officeholders were elected in large part by through the willing efforts of Tea Party activists, these efforts did not stem from coalition-building. Rather, these efforts were the result of Tea Party people recognizing key principles being articulated by individual candidates who just happened to be running under the GOP banner.

However, there is so little evidence that the Republican Party—especially the GOP establishment—represents any of those principles or ideals, that any organization with which the GOP might seek alliance puts their own “brand” at great risk in agreeing to such a formal association.

Think about it: How many Republicans speak great and marvelous things about liberty, free markets, sound money and a constitutionally-limited government when they are stumping? A small handful, at most.

And, all too frequently, those who do make campaign statements about liberty, free markets, and sound monetary policy end up going to Washington or the state house or elsewhere in government only to cave-in time and time again to so-called “political expediencies.”

 

The GOP establishment kind of candidate

This year’s (2011-2012) GOP presidential primary exposes the hypocrisy of the Republican Party’s false claims to principle and the infection of progressive thinking within party itself. It seems clear that the GOP establishment delights in a candidate like Mitt Romney while despising and shunning a candidate like Ron Paul.

Here I pause to give you a specific and local example.

Most of you are likely aware of Minnesota’s supposedly upwardly mobile star, former Governor Tim Pawlenty.  Here is a man whom I respect for many reasons.  However, this man—as a politician—is a supporter of subsidies for the ethanol industry.

There is at least one word in that phrase alone that should be anathema to a principled Republican: “subsidies.”

A free market needs no subsidies for industry.  Subsidies cause capital to be misdirected, thus damaging the economy overall.  And, of course, that is not to mention the fact that this particular subsidy causes our machines to become competitors for our very food supply with little or no proven offsetting benefit of any kind.

Again, most of you know that this nothing more than a political expedient for GOP politician Pawlenty. He is willing to sacrifice the principle of free markets and to extract taxes from the people for this senseless waste and, in the end, for nothing more than political gain.

Is that the “Republican” brand?  Because that is what many of us out here, who are trying to figure out what the “Republican” brand is, seem to find everywhere we turn.

Here is another pertinent example. Congressman Erik Paulsen. When Paulsen supported the COPS Act of 2009.  I wrote him the following:

Representative Paulsen:

Since when is local law enforcement a role for the national government?

Of course, in a re-election campaign your opponents might say that you voted against money for law enforcement. Now, who could possibly be against more or better law enforcement?

Naturally, for a politician, that’s a justifiable reason for ignoring the U.S. Constitution.

Very sincerely yours,

…

P.S. One of the things I’ve noticed about writing to you regarding issues is that, if you and I agree, you frequently respond. If we do not agree, I seldom hear from you. I would respect you more if you told me something like, “I know it was the wrong thing to do from a Constitutional point of view, but it was a political expedient.”

At least then I would know you were being honest with me and with yourself. Furthermore, I would know that you actually know and understand the constitutional limits of the federal government.

It appears that “Republican”-branded Congressmen are just as willing to keep state and local governments suckling at the federal teat just as much as the Democrats are.

Earlier, Congressman Paulsen supported extending the CHIP (Child Health Insurance Program) as an extension of Medicaid, and I wrote to him as follows:

Representative Paulsen:

I’m sorry. I thought you were a Republican. Please tell me why your new television advertisements boast about your willingness to access public tax monies for the benefit of a limited group of individuals in the extended socialized medicine program? Also, please cite for me the Constitutional provision that grants to Congress the right to take such actions.

It cannot be the “public welfare” provision, for that only allows Congress to take actions that benefit or will tend to benefit all the public — not restricted or qualified groups.

If you, as an individual, choose to indulge in charity for those less fortunate than yourself, then you are free to do so at your own expense. I will do the same in my personal affairs. But the Constitution does not grant to Congress the authority to extort monies through taxes for the purposes of meeting the wants and needs of the “poor” or any other group smaller than the group of all U.S. citizens.

We elected you, and you swore an oath, to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. Please do so.

I trust you understand the “brand confusion” out here in the general population a bit more clearly now.  I would be delighted to correspond with you further on this matter.

….

Very sincerely yours,

I think you get the picture. Please let your GOP Party representatives and elected officials know that you would like the party to stand for something other than re-election!

Thank you.

On economics, human action and capitalism

Every individual is constantly making choices in the marketplace. This is what we mean by “human action.” With each decision, the consumer decides how to use his or her limited resources (and they are limited whether one is a pauper or millionaire).

You and I are constantly making choices such as: "Will I be better off if I spend my money for this television or that television?" (comparisons between similar products) while, at the same time, we are also considering, "Will I feel better off if I spend my money by paying off my credit cards and getting another latte instead of buying a new TV?"

Even though we sometimes may feel coerced into buying a product (say, fuel for our car), we are still making a free-will decision. We are asking and answering questions like: "Will I be better off putting gas in my car or taking the bus to work? Or maybe I could just hitch-hike to work. Then again, maybe I'd be better off just quitting my job and not putting gas in my car ever." Even the things we feel we must do when we'd rather be doing other things—like going to work when we'd rather be fishing—are free-will choices based on which decision we feel will make our situation better (either in the short-term or the long-term).

Capitalism does not favor the alert! Life, in general, favors the alert.

People who pay more attention when they drive, operate heavy equipment or cross the street are more likely to survive and prosper than those who do not. People who are more willing to respond as effectively as possible to changes in their environment that will affect their short-term or long-term welfare will generally be better off than the lazy, indolent, lethargic or foolish.

That's not because capitalism is opposed to such people, but because such people fail to seize opportunities for surviving and thriving when the opportunities present themselves.

As they say, “Opportunity only knocks once.” But even if it knocks a multitude of times, there will still be those who will miss it.

That is not capitalism’s fault.

---

For more about what capitalism is or is not, read here.

Free Trade (or Politicians bought-and-sold)

---

"If politicians can determine what can be bought and sold, the first thing to be bought and sold will be politicians." – P.J. O’Rourke

---

O’Rourke is right in this matter, of course. And it is precisely because politicians are willing to hand out special favors to corporations (corporatism), their big political supporters (crony capitalism), unions (unionism and protectionism) and other special interests that monies keep flowing from these groups to “buy and sell” politicians election after election.

Those who have become a part of the problem...

"I don't believe that those who have become part of the problem are necessarily the best qualified to solve the problems." -- Ronald Reagan (1976)

We'll never build a lasting economic recovery...

"The fact is, we'll never build a lasting economic recovery by going deeper into debt at a faster rate than we ever have before." -- Ronald Reagan (1976)

There's only UP or DOWN

"[T]here is no such thing as a left or a right. There's only an up or down - [up] man's old, old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on a downward course." -- Ronald Reagan (1964)

This is the issue... self-government

"This is the issue…: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves." -- Ronald Reagan (1964)

The lie of the "advance" of socialism

Communist socialism was responsible for turning the world's largest wheat exporter (Russia) into the world's largest wheat importer in a few short decades. That same Communist-socialist form of collectivism was able to turn the African continent's wealthiest nation (Ethiopia) into that continent's most destitute nation in only 17 years.

As F.A. Harper has rightly said:

"[Socialism]... due to its inability to generate any accumulation of the tools required for an advanced society,... must subsist on the confiscation of what has already been produced under some other plan; it has to parasitize something. The confiscation of private property is civilization in retreat."

The leftist avant garde is, despite their motives and intent, taking this nation and the world back to the caves and jungles, not forward to utopia.

Becoming a bee...

“The social insects [such as ants and bees] demonstrate a near approach to the ideal of the socialist society…. The wishes of the individual insect are not allowed to come in conflict with his bounden duty to the colony. Unlimited cooperation, with a total lack of competition within their society, seems to prevail. In fact, the individual insect seems incapable of either a thought or a wish.

….

“These insect colonies are highly materialistic. Moral and spiritual considerations play no part…. Population is rigidly controlled. By killing those that do not work and by ruthlessly destroying the ill and the aged, full employment and ‘high’ productivity is maintained…. A high ‘national income’ is maintained by imposing compulsion of labor at an early age, by compulsion of long work weeks and by prohibiting vacations either with or without pay. Whereas the individual insect exhibits no self-interest, the self interests of the colony are substituted therefore; the two are in one sense similar, though the colony-selfishness operates on a huge scale whereby the mass of insects are driven into supporting it by blind allegiance.”

Harper, Dr. Floyd A. Liberty - A Path to Its Recovery. Irving-on-Hudson, NY: Foundation for Economic Education, The, 1949.

All this is becoming much too real a possibility to me. Keep writing your Congressmen and Senators. Many of them have forgotten the first principals of these United States.

Political cartoon from Chicago Tribune (1934)

My latest message to Congressional leaders

Here's a message I just sent to some in Congress:

This if from a fund-raising message I received from Sen. John Cornyn:

"Frankly, it's unthinkable to me that a company American taxpayers bailed out would hand out bonuses to their executives. Where I come from - and pretty much everywhere except Washington, D.C. - you pay people to succeed - not to fail."

Since we "pay people to succeed -- not to fail," why are we paying anyone in Congress?

Remember, there have been lots and lots of opportunities for Republicans to stand up and ACT LIKE REPUBLICANS over more than THREE DECADES to address what was happening with the Fed's management of credit and the actions of FNMA and FHLMC. Far too many Republicans did NOTHING or, worse, VOTED with the Democrats.

It was a REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT, George W. Bush, that promoted the AIG bailout. It was NOT a Republican thing to do, however. Republicans are supposed to believe in FREE MARKETS and LIMITED GOVERNMENT. This is NOT a FAILURE of capitalism or the free market principles. This is yet another FAILURE of GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION in free markets and Republican actions have merely allowed the DEMOCRATS to cover over the FAILURE of such policies.

If REPUBLICANS WOULD ACT LIKE REPUBLICANS all the time, you would NOT be forced to put out SCHIZOPHRENIC FUND RAISING MATERIALS like the one I just received -- On the one hand blaming LIBERAL DEMOCRATS while, on the other hand, saying WE NEED MORE GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION in the affairs of the free market.

QUIT IT -- and ACT LIKE MEN OF INTEGRITY.

What are YOU going to tell them?

True Things versus Truth -- the Whole Truth

Most people do not make the proper distinction between TRUE THINGS and THE TRUTH. When you appear in court, for example, you do not swear to tell the court "true things." You swear to tell the court "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."

Here's the distinction by way of example: If I have a flat tire on my way to work and I am late, I might tell my boss, "Sorry, I'm late, but I had a flat tire on my way." That would be a "true thing." What I might NOT have told my boss is, I shut off my alarm and went back to sleep. When I woke up, I only had ten minutes to get to work. So, even if I hadn't had a flat tire on the way to work, I would have been late anyway! That would have been "the truth, the whole truth."

How does this apply to our discussion?

Many people know a true thing: That a free market economy is harsh. They know that without governmental interference that businesses -- even large businesses like the automakers -- will likely fail. That such failure will lead to large scale unemployment. That such unemployment will cause hardships on many families.

Knowing this "true thing," they assume it to be "the truth" -- that it encompasses all the facts and all time.

What they do NOT take into account is that business failure is GOOD and ESSENTIAL for a free market economy. They do NOT consider that economies generally recover rapidly from such failures and soon the workers and the capital are put back to work in "profitable" rather than "unprofitable" businesses. This, in the long run, will provide increasing capital to the system and increasing opportunity for everyone. This is "the truth, the whole truth."

There is, of course, much more to this, but I think you get the general concept.

It's Not Just the Main Stream Media

Unfortunately, it's not just the main stream media that are to blame for our current situation. Government-run schools do NOT, by and large, instruct the next generation to have a keen understanding of the proper role of LIMITED GOVERNMENT, the value and workings of FREE MARKETS, or the need for a sound MONETARY SYSTEM.

Instead, the average 20-something or 30-something today actually BELIEVES that government IS the real and proper solution to the problems they face, that free markets do NOT work, and they know absolutely nothing (other than the denominations of bills and coins in their wallets) about monetary policy and its impact on their day-to-day lives.