Laissez-faire

Those who accept the bromide that “money is the root of all evil,” likely have a poor understanding of what money actually is. I found this wonderful video, just over two minutes long, which seeks to explain the importance of the capitalist system based on a free and unregulated medium of exchange. A system that even the United States has never fully experienced, and is currently deviating from.

lib·er·ty (lĭb’ər-tē)
n. pl. lib·er·ties
1.
a. The condition of being free from restriction or control.
b. The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one’s own choosing.
c. The condition of being physically and legally free from confinement, servitude, or forced labor. See Synonyms at freedom.

Today the Federal minimum wage rate increase takes effect, boosting the minimum wage from $5.15 an hour to $7.25 an hour over 3 years. Along with this we will likely see an increase in unemployment; especially among young and low-skilled workers.

The laws of economics, no less reliable than other scientific laws, cannot be overridden by government officials, no matter how much authority they’ve been granted. When the minimum wage is increased, employers will respond by firing those employees who’s productivity falls below the new threshold. An employer hires an employee who will provide a level of productivity(output) that, at a minimum, equals the required investment(input). To do otherwise would cause the employer to suffer a loss, and eventually go out of business. A higher demand for people with higher productivity, and a premature replacement of low wage workers with capital equipment, are an inevitable result of mandatory wage increases(assuming all other factors remain unchanged).

Minimum wage legislation is a poor attempt to repair economic problems introduced by existing government intervention. The inability of some in the lower working class to maintain a reasonable standard of living with their relatively meager income is caused mainly by the weakening value of our fiat currency due to deficit spending, credit expansion and inflation. This is another piece of evidence supporting Mises’ claim that the “middle-of-the-road” policy will eventually lead to complete control over the economy by the government(socialism). Every interventionist policy creates a negative, unintended consequence that requires further intervention, until complete control over the economic system is coercively enforced, and liberty has all but vanished.

No matter how well-intentioned, government intervention in economic matters always has detrimental effects. In the long term, the results are typically contrary to solution which was intended. We simply cannot create wealth out of thin air. The best solution for unemployment and a higher standard of living is to withdraw government from economic affairs. In a truly free market, though not perfect, we would tend toward full-employment and our standard of living would be maximized.

Why should politicians be making these sensitive decisions that can only effectively be made by individuals? What makes them more qualified and less fallible than those who are directly involved in the transactions in question? If wealth can magically be created through minimum wage legislation, why not increase it to $30 an hour?

The following was taken from the Washington Post:

The Federal Emergency Management Agency since early 2006 has suppressed warnings from its own field workers about health problems experienced by hurricane victims living in government-provided trailers with levels of a toxic chemical 75 times the recommended maximum for U.S. workers, congressional lawmakers said yesterday.

A trail of e-mails obtained by investigators shows that the agency’s lawyers rejected a proposal for systematic testing of the levels of potentially cancer-causing formaldehyde gas in the trailers, out of concern that the agency would be legally liable for any hazards or health problems. As many as 120,000 families displaced by hurricanes Katrina and Rita lived in the suspect trailers, and hundreds have complained of ill effects.

People opposed to eliminating wasteful government agencies like FEMA should seriously consider the alternative: dealing with them. Imagine how much better this situation would have been dealt with if we left it up to volunteers and charitable organizations instead of FEMA, the bloated bureaucracy that “turned away” volunteers.

Gross indeed!

The Federal Election Commission has released the 2007 July quarterly campaign finance reports, and many people have picked up on a fascinating trend within the reports. A breakdown of the donations given by the armed forces, to Republican candidates, reveals that about fifty percent of all the money donated by members of the military went to Ron Paul. Extract whatever meaning from this that you will, but it’s clear that the main-stream media won’t be able to ignore Dr. Paul much longer.

(thanks to Delaware::Ron Paul)

New York Firefighters, with funding from the International Association of Firefighters, created a video criticizing Rudy Giuliani for his mismanaging of the events of September 11th and then attempting to exploit the tragedy for his benefit.

The Bush administration and those who wish to continue their failed policy, it seems, have found themselves in a bit of a pickle. Recent reports of an increased threat of terrorism — and some bizarre predictions by Chertoff based on a “gut feeling” — are being spun by many media outlets as a way to bolster support for Bush and the Iraq War by creating a sense of fear among Americans. But this creates a dilemma for the same people that seek to use this information for their benefit. If Al-Qaida is as much a threat, or a worse threat as many report, as it was on September 11th, then clearly the Department of Homeland Security, the war in Iraq and the war on Terror are all dismal failures. I suppose, on the other hand, that if there was no threat of terrorism, the jobs of Michael Chertoff, and many others, would be in jeopardy.

I think the problem is that we fail to accept the real reason why terrorism is such a threat to us.

“A reaction might take place as a result of the US government’s hitting Muslim civilians and executing more than 600,000 Muslim children in Iraq by preventing food and medicine from reaching them. So, the US is responsible for any reaction, because it extended its war against troops to civilians.”
Osama bin Laden
CNN interview 1997

“If the American government is serious about avoiding explosions inside the U.S., then let it stop provoking the feelings of 1,250 million Muslims.”
Osama bin Laden
CNN interview 1997

“Your security is not in the hands of [Democratic presidential candidate John] Kerry or Bush or al Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands and each state which does not harm our security will remain safe.”
Osama bin Laden
On videotape shown on Al Jazeera, October 29, 2004

“We, God willing, will continue to fight you and will continue martyrdom operations inside and outside the United States until you abandon your oppression and foolish acts.”
Osama bin Laden
Demanding US withdraw from Iraq, in audiotape broadcast on Al Jazeera, October 18 2003

Is it any wonder that terrorist attacks have increased since the invasion of Iraq, and Al-Qiada continues to grow despite spending $610 Billion to fight terrorism?

Terrorist attacks
2007: 29% Increase
2006: 25% Increase
2005: 400% Increase
2004: 300% Increase
2003: ’significant attacks’ at 21-year high

Butler Shaffer sarcastically points out the probable course of action that will be taken in response to the obvious failures of our government:

“The failure of governmental programs (e.g., government schools, police dealing with crime, etc.) only shows how much more money and authority must be given to the state to overcome such failings! Isn’t this the way the market works: if we buy a product that doesn’t function as promised, don’t we offer a higher price to the seller/manufacturer the next time we purchase it?”

Congress has an approval rating of about 14 percent. Among the members of Congress however, they apparently have a 57 percent approval rating. In fact 57 percent of them approve enough to vote themselves a $4400 per year pay raise, bumping their salary to around $170,000. Deciding whether or not you get a raise must be very convenient.

(thanks mom)

I came across an interesting article about Cindy Sheehan’s possible run against Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. I’ve never given Cindy Sheehan much credit for anything other than being passionate and outspoken about her anti-war stance, but her recent comments lead me to believe that she has a better understanding of the real issues than the majority of her supporters, or most Americans for that matter.

“I was a lifelong Democrat only because the choices were limited. The Democrats are the party of slavery and were the party that started every war in the 20th century except the other Bush debacle. The Federal Reserve, permanent federal (and unconstitutional) income taxes, Japanese concentration camps and, not one, but two atom bombs dropped on the innocent citizens of Japan were brought to us via the Democrats. Don’t tell me the Democrats are our ‘Saviors,’ because I am not buying it, especially after they bought and purchased more caskets and more devastating pain when they financed and co-facilitated more of George’s abysmal occupation and they are allowing a melt down of our representative Republic by allowing the evils of the executive branch to continue unrestrained by their silent complicity.”

She correctly lumps the Federal Reserve and the income tax in with some other significant atrocities committed by our government. As the author of the article, Justin Raimondo, points out:

“I know Sheehan is supposed to be a leftist icon, and her biggest fans no doubt consider themselves liberals with a Greenish tinge, but it turns out she’s more like a female Ron Paul. Liberals, especially of the establishment variety – of which there are plenty in Baghdad-by-the-Bay – are going to hate that stuff about the Federal Reserve and the income tax, but she’s right, of course. Without the Fed, the inflationary policies that fund our wars of conquest couldn’t be implemented; with no income tax, the empire our rulers envision would only be a megalomaniac’s fantasy.”

I would not go as far as to compare her to Ron Paul, but he hit the nail on the head when he suggests that we would be unable to wage unjust wars without the ability of the Federal Reserve to print whatever money they cannot confiscate from the taxpayers through the burdensome income tax.

Though declared unconstitutional when first proposed during the War of 1812, an income tax, was finally imposed to pay for the Civil War. Incomes were taxed off and on until the 1895 when they were once again found to be unconstitutional. The problem of constitutionality was circumvented by the ratification — though questionably so — of the Sixteenth Amendment which authorized the income tax. To repeal the Sixteenth Amendment would not only return much of our liberties to us, it would place another hurdle in the path of the elites who wish to impose their imperialistic vision on the world through the barrel of a gun.

Without the Federal Reserve, the proponents of unpopular foreign wars would have great difficulty obtaining the necessary funding through taxation. Being taxed up-front — rather than the hidden costs of inflationary monetary policy — would reveal the true cost of war. Americans would not tolerate such excessive taxation. Then again, I find it shocking that we are putting up with current levels of taxation (almost half of every dollar we earn is taken from us through the force of the government).

To truly be an opponent of unjust wars, one should support the abolition of the Income Tax and The Federal Reserve. I’m impressed that Cindy Sheehan recognizes this, and also that Democrats are not going to keep us out of unnecessary wars.

It has been over a year since Detroit passed a law allowing police to stop and ticket drivers for talking on their cell phones; yet they still haven’t made it illegal to apply makeup or floss your teeth while behind the wheel. They have a lot more laws to pass before Detroit drivers can feel safe.

The Michigan Brewers Guild is fighting another tax increase on Michigan beer, proposed by state legislators. They are proposing a nearly 500% increase in the excise tax. This is in addition to sales tax, unemployment tax, self-employment tax, social security tax, city tax, state tax, federal tax, etc., which currently account for about 44% of the price of a beer produced in Michigan. This would be very damaging to an industry already suffering from heavy regulation.

As stated by the MBG in their position statement, “Beer excise taxes are destructive and a detriment to Michigan breweries. They put Michigan’s breweries, especially those that sell a majority of their beer in Michigan, at a competitive disadvantage to competing breweries in the region and across the nation. These Michigan brewers already have to build their home market at an inflated market price over neighboring states. In some cases our State excise tax rate is 300% higher than our neighbors! Increasing this imbalance will impede growth and send more retail dollars out of state; ultimately decreasing the potential for more State revenue.”

The increase in excise tax of approximately 500% is reportedly to adjust for inflation since the last tax increase. This is poor reasoning for a tax increase since inflation itself is a hidden tax. Inflation is the result of an expanded money supply due to the ability of the Federal Reserve to create fiat money out of thin air at the request of the Federal government. The large corporations with close ties to the government benefit at the expense of the low and middle classes since they are likely to be the first to receive the newly minted money. The average citizen simply sees an increase in prices (or the devaluation of the dollar). Justifying a tax increase by claiming it should stay inline with inflation is rubbing salt in the wounds of the taxpayers.

Even if this tax increase is not approved, they will find another way to extract money from the taxpayers. What they will NOT do, is consider cutting overall spending, which is one very necessary step in reviving our ailing economy.

In some twisted attempt at bolstering patriotism and “protecting the flag,” laws are being passed in many states that require American flags to be purchased from domestic companies.

“Minnesota has passed the strongest measure, a new law that goes into effect at year’s end requiring every Old Glory sold in state stores to be domestically produced. Violations are a misdemeanor, punishable by up to a $1,000 fine and 90 days in jail.”

So, in order to protect and honor a supposed symbol of freedom, these lawmakers are going to deprive citizens of, well, some freedom.

Democratic Rep. Tom Rukavina, the law’s sponser said, “Nothing is more embarrassing to me than a plastic flag made in China. This replica of freedom we so respect should be made in this country.”

I can think of something much more embarrassing: How about fining or incarcerating an American citizen for purchasing a flag from a foreign company? He may have some inexplicable respect for an inanimate piece of fabric, but if Rep. Rukavina had any respect at all for the concept of freedom, he wouldn’t have even considered such a deplorable piece of legislation.

Even the White House knows the mission was not accomplished. In fact, they’d like everyone to forget about the decor for Bush’s mission accomplished speech in 2003. Imagine that: The government attempting to manipulation our perception of past events.

Ron Paul discusses his view of the pardoning — or more accurately, commutation — of Scooter Libbey, in an interview with Alan Colmes. He also discusses civil liberties, foreign policy and his campaign progress:

Within the Declaration of Independence there is a list of abuses by the King of Great Britain. Here are a few of the injustices that are relevant today:

“He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.”

“He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.”

“He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.”

“For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:”

“For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:”

Maybe we the people should consider renewing our independence from tyrannical rule, before we accumulate a list as condemnable as that in the United States Declaration of Independence.

After being excluded from the Presidential Forum hosted by the Iowans for Tax Relief and Iowa Christian Alliance, Ron Paul’s campaign set up a rally located in the same complex as the Forum immediately following it. The six republican candidates that attended the Iowa forum, including “front runner” Mitt Romney, drew a crowd of around 600 people, leaving hundreds of seat unfilled. The rally for Ron Paul drew almost twice as many. Many sources have been reporting that the venue, with a capacity of 1000 people, was packed, with many more standing around the perimeter. Despite this turn out, the local Des Moines news paper chose to concentrate on the Iowa Forum.

There were a few notable observations following the event. Simply because an organization — namely the Iowans for Tax Relief and the Iowa Christian Alliance — bears a title suggesting they support a particular cause, does not necessarily mean they do so to the greatest extent. Clearly other factors play a role in the goals they seek to achieve.

We also should clearly see, despite smears by the main stream media claiming that Ron Paul’s supporters are just a few internet spammers, Dr. Paul has vast support with passion unmatched by any presidential candidate, Republican or Democrat.

Finally, we should be aware of the bias of many in the main stream media, as they clearly have proved that they do not always report events appropriately.

All of these observations should convince those who believe in Dr. Paul’s message to support him, even though the common perception is that he has no chance to win. We are being offered an opportunity to make some significant repairs to this damaged country. Don’t let this defeatist attitude take that chance away.