The Swamp Land Exile

When the Iranian government decided to (attempt to) clamp down on the Internet, users turned to social networking tools such as Twitter.

What's ironic is that the US State Department asked the Twitter folks not to shut down the service (due for maintenance) so that photos, videos and text would be available to those seeking updates about the mess in Iran.

But why is this ironic? Because Lord Obama wants to create an Internet czar with the power to control the Internet in times of emergency. (See the Cybersecurity Act of 2009--I think they forgot the scare quotes around security, btw).

If we ever had (major) election turmoil in this country, would it also be considered an "emergency"? To ask is to answer.

Flickr set.

I have an LRC article today.

Flying High With Hoover and Roosevelt

By the time I set foot on an airport I usually already have all my entertainment for the flight. However, on recent weekend stint to New Orleans for a wedding, I realized I had nothing to read. So imagine my surprise when I went to one of those (usually very small) airport bookstores and found not one but five or six copies of Bob Murphy's Politically Incorrect Guide to the Great Depression and the New Deal. As an amateur-hobbyist Austrian economist, how I pass up that opportunity?

As with the other books in the Politically Incorrect series, Murphy's Guide is aimed for the common man. Aside from the main body of the text, every other page features various quirky and fun text boxes that provide additional information to the reader: from book recommendations to quick facts.

So OK – I said that the book was aimed for the common man. However, the content is not at all common. Indeed, far from it. In under two hundred easy to read pages, Murphy has managed to turn the mainstream view of Hoover and FDR on its head. Hoover was not at all a "do nothing" president. Nor was he much of a defender of the market. Indeed, it was Hoover, as Murphy shows, who sets the tone for Roosevelt's devastating attack on the economy and on the property rights of millions of Americans.

I was aware of a good deal of the shenanigans that Hoover and FDR imposed. Others, on the other hand, took me by surprise. When Roosevelt abolished the gold standard and began to manipulate its price in dollars, he would, according to stories, set the price of gold fairly randomly, picking numbers he though were "lucky."*

Murphy builds the case against Hoover by showing that he was in fact quite active, especially in his love for government/public work programs. FDR's Sovietesque policies had a running start. And, of course, far from getting us out of the depression, FRD's policies lengthened and deepened it.

Though the book analyzes policies enacted during Hoover and FDR's regimes, special attention is given to that mysterious and supposedly independent entity: the Federal Reserve. This is the core of Murphy's Politically Incorrect Guide to the Great Depression and the New Deal. The Fed's relentless control of the money supply and of credit was central to the crash and the depression. Murphy devotes dozens of pages to address the arguments raised over the years by various groups, especially the Keynesians and Friedmanites, convincingly rebutting them (or at least, it convinced me – I am an amateur after all: YMMV).

Imagine an average person reading this book. What would the reaction be? I read the entirety of the book on the flight. As I flipped the pages I would turn my head to the person sitting next to me and think "this book is for you." And no, I do not consider myself an elitist. On the contrary, I wished more people were aware of these accurate, though revisionist, views. Grab a copy of this for yourself or for your family and friends. Be an intellectual troublemaker once in a while. Because if George W. Bush is our Hoover, and Obama the next FDR, then hold on. The Newest Deal won't be pretty.

*Even if the story above were false, I would remind the reader that when there is not a market to set prices, any price set by the state bears no resemblance to economic reality and though we might say that a government price of $2.49 per gallon of milk is reasonable or "correct" and a price of $19.99 is not, even here, the former amount feels right because there is more or less a freeish market/reference price for milk. Central planning could be seen as randomly selecting prices.

After three years, I'm going back to New Orleans. No, not to live (thank Zeus) but for a wedding. It will be a quick, two night trip. Might not even have time for photography.

Apparently the NYPD has told members of its "service" that photography in public places is still legal in the city (large JPG):

Members of the service are reminded that photography and the videotaping of public places, buildings and structures are common activities within New York City. Given the City's prominence as a tourist destination, practically all such photography will have no connection to terrorism or unlawful conduct.

What a relief that I am no longer considered a terrorist. Jokes aside, this is a somewhat of a clarifying document, confirming the express permission to photograph in the subway and other areas. Also, section 2 (see image) states that cops cannot just ask to see what photos people have just taken without the photographer's consent. That said, as expected (this is the state after all!), the police can, when there are "exigent circumstances" confiscate equipment.

I do wonder, however, if they would be so gracious when it comes time to record the NYPD's activities. Never turn the cameras on Big Brother. Buildings: sure, snap away; state-criminal activity: No.

All in all, a minor victory perhaps.

(Via Chase Jarvis)

Perhaps the thing that irks me the most about state politics is the simple-minded assumption by mainstream statists that they, unlike "doctrinaire" or "radical" libertarians, are free from having to explain their views or possess some special insight into the human situation that allows them to ignore potentially devastating counter arguments to their almost always incoherent system of ethics.

An example: there is a sign on a house near where I live that says "We support single payer health care." Fine. You support that and I do not. Now what? Many times, when dealing with mainstream opinions about forcible government, I am told that I "blindly" follow private property rights and from that, I oppose any intrusion in the market for health care. Yet those who oppose my views must have a view as well. What is it? Surely they favor some sort of property rights (or even possession rights) assignment scheme. Instead of assigning property rights to homesteaders/original appropriators, the state gets to decide.

Furthermore, it seems to me that if you keep pushing the issue to see if there is a core belief, it usually either does not exist (that is, they support whatever makes them feel good and are totally outcome-oriented), or their arguments, upon closer examination, are full of holes.

Now, it's of course possible that the principled libertarian view is incorrect. But then, the statist position could also be incorrect. And here's another issue that comes up. In a very real sense, we all cannot really "agree to disagree." If A supports empire and war, welfare, drug and gun control and government-managed health care, and B wants none of that, what are the odds that A will say "fine, I respect your view and will not impose any of those things on you"?

Support for any form of aggression (private crime or the state) necessarily involves forcing others to accept that their arrangement is better than your own: taxes, murder, rape, prohibition, trade restrictions--these are all things that are imposed by one person or group or persons on another, non-consenting group.

Ultimately, politics, at its core, does not offer room for disagreement. And the way its presented to the public makes no difference. So down with democracy, of course, but down with monarchy and even with "representative" republic.

[Cross-posted]

Nikon D40, JPEG Fine (no changes made other than resizing for attachment), Flash white balance, 1/320, 55mm. ISO 200, f/11, AF, manual exposure with an off-camera Vivitar 285HV on a Lumiquest softbox III (handheld off camera, to the side)

Ayer cumpí 31.











El resto.

At Benshie.com I have set up a blog for Benjamin and will post some photos and videos every so often.

2 Apr 2009 - 3.26kg - 50.8cm

HEROIC!

You know that socialist cesspool between ON, QC, MA, CT, NJ and PA? It just got a lot worse. The budget for the state of New York includes an income tax hike for those making more than $300k (and another increase for those making more than $500k).

That's not the end of it. There's more theft in the form of vehicle registration fees, a cigar tax, a beer and wine tax, a utility assessment, an auto insurance surcharge, driver's license fees, a rental car tax and a registration fee for tobacco sellers. And 5 cents have been added to the bottled water deposit.

I have a new article on LRC today.

Not Really A Hater!

I am a libertarian and believe that people should respect the rights of others to their legitimately obtained property. Thus, I prefer peace instead of war, life instead of murder, prosperity instead of theft and the market instead of the aggressive state.

Yet every now and then I am called a "hater" for opposing most (if not all) government programs. Let’s go over some of the things that I supposedly hate.

I hate the arts because I do not believe in using violence against people to make them pay for it (supporters of the National Endowment of the Arts and its various state and local equivalents no doubt have no love for me).

I hate scientific research. You see, according to the argument, without public funding (also known as taxation) there would be an underproduction of research and we would find ourselves back in the Stone Age. Thus, in order to remain civilized, we must threaten (in a civilized manner, that is) to fine, jail or execute people if they are not willing to part with their money. Makes perfect sense.

Transportation and travel? Forget it. I hate that crap as well. If the feds had not confiscated land, displaced people, distorted towns and cities and taxed the entire country, we would have no roads or means to move about the land. For only the government can carry out such projects, never mind the possibility that maybe – just maybe – there would be various entrepreneurs dealing with this demand instead of a monolithic agency.

Not a fan of safety (and apparently a lover of death and chaos), I oppose the control of firearms. That’s right: Uzis for grandma and Colts for Junior. Rivers of blood are always found when a government has relaxed firearms restrictions; everyone who comes into contact with a gun immediately becomes a savage killer. The same applies, I suppose, for people who have knives, rocks, power tools and knuckles.

Societal order is not also on my list of priorities, apparently. Lacking fraud, the complete decriminalization of the use, possession, marketing, importation, exportation of any substance that people want to consume should be allowed. I guess I am a "radical" for opposing that particular government-sponsored slavery program called the war on drugs. Prostitution, another victimless crime, is just a capitalist act between consenting adults. And yes, I am also a defender (but not a consumer, by the way) of the black market sex-for-money industry.

The poor of the planet think I am scum for opposing government-to-government welfare schemes, often referred to as foreign aid. Indeed, instead of markets and entrepreneurship, sound money, free traffic of goods and labor, and property rights for the world, I hate the poor with a passion for not desiring to be taxed by a tyrant to give money to the tyrant ruling others.

When it comes to health, I am indubitably your enemy. The owner of an establishment, due to being the owner (duh!) has the right to determine whether a particular behavior is allowed. Smoking bans represent a form of theft on behalf of the state, for it now has magically claimed a right to control someone else’s resources.

If you are retired, you ain’t gonna like me very much. Social[ist] [in]Security, a Ponzi scheme not unlike government-sanctioned central fractional-reserve banking, is a massive distribution of wealth from the young and working to the old and non-working. The fairness of this is beyond me. Don’t enslave me to pay for someone else’s grandpa. I guess this means I hate old people!

I hate minorities (though I am a "minority" myself…oh dear) because I oppose anti-discrimination laws, which are really laws against free association. In fact, I think it might be easier to deal with racism by abolishing racial quotas and preferences (affirmative action) and expose the racist owners and managers; right now, they have to comply and hide.

If you are a labor protectionist, I am in your sights. Since the state holds a criminal monopoly over "its" territory, and thus controls its borders, I oppose the INS. Employers should be free to hire anyone regardless of nationality or origin.

And what kind of market anarchist would I be without hating those damned children! Property taxes (a form of evil rent for the government coffers) tend to go towards government education (the more cynical ones would call that "daytime jails" due to truancy laws), regardless of your need. How on Earth is this fair? Moreover, to maximize my rug-rat hatred, I must come out in favor of the abolition of drinking-age laws. And while we are at it, let’s allow consenting humans of any age to voluntarily accept employment offers or offer employment to others.

And last, but not least, I hate America! There shouldn’t be a standing army (or, even better, any form of monopoly "defense"), military bases or soldiers in most countries in the world, a dominating pro-dollar regime, an imperial presidency, a compliant supreme court or those barbarians in congress. I hate the troops so much that I want them to come home and become productive members of society.

Actually, now that I think about it, my detractors could be correct about me on the last point. If by "America" they mean the totalitarian and potentially unbounded mega-state with its fifty-plus appendages, then yes: I do hate that!