Silverwolf says: When it comes to economics we would do well to question all the so-called laws we always hear talked about, for Silverwolf says there are no laws (although we are not refering to the laws of fractiles, waves, fibonacci retracements, etc. which DO hold true, and which can be verified actuarially. But just because these laws hold true for data of the past 10-, 50-, or 100- years, doesn’t mean they will hold true in the future). After reading about Black Holes, Silverwolf threw his paws up and said, “I give up. There are no rules if matter, which Newton, and everyone in my high school class including the teacher, believed could not be created or destroyed, could disappear like that, whole galaxies sucked into some cosmic vacuum cleaner. Really eldritch. If there were any planets on any of those galaxies going into this galactic blender like our own earth, and if they had stock markets, think how surprised they would be as they saw private property literally disappear. A communist’s dream.” The world is more fluid than we think it to be.
So, firstly, no laws. When one thinks of the “laws” of chess strategy of the kind of chess played in the 1800’s, say from 1850-1885, one reads of dogmatic rules written as if their authors were certain of their veracity that nowadays send one into paroxysms of laughter. From Dr. Siegbert Tarrasch, whose main influence stretched from 1890-1920, we get a set of dogmas like ‘develop knights before bishops’ which have been invalidated over and over again in countless openings. There are many openings where developing a bishop before a knight is either the best move or at least innocuous. So much for “Grandmaster Tarrasch” and believing in authority, and I think we should question economic theory in like fashion.
So we see that now Keynsian economics still holds sway over the land, and that finally the economic disease and totalitarian rule that must come, willy-nilly, from collectivism, because of its violation of the liberties innumerated by Jefferson, are making themselves manifest in both the markets and the political arena simultaneously. This is exactly what Hayek predicted in “The Road to Serfdom” written in the late ’40s. The only correct response to this is the adoption of the economic principles of the Austrian school, principles that are tied to a set of highly moral political principles, these being identical to those that wisechiefs Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, et. al., innumerated in the Declar./Const./BloRts, and principles which, at the same time are valid in an economic sense. Here, Silverwolf must highly recommend the perusal of Murray Nelson Rothbard’s libertarian economic classic, “Man, Economy, and State” which explains in terms a baby could understand and with Robinson Crusoe-type examples, the most basic and elemental principles of the free market, and transmogrifies these through to more complex themes later in the work. Rothbard, who was a Professor at the Univ. of Nevada for many years, was no slouch, and his works are on the recommended reading list of Prez. candidate Congressman Ron Paul. In sum, perhaps Rothbard’s and libertarian economic philosophy is : value for value, and individuals should be free to contract with one another if they do so willingly without government interference. If a businessman spends decades trading value for value, and gives his customers much better service and much lower prices than all his competitors, is he to be condemned for acquiring wealth, or choosing to spend it as he wishes? If, in spite of having at least a third, and probably more, of every dollar that came across his counter and four months out of every twelve confiscated by the collectivists to fund corporate welfare programs that the businessman is then called stingy for opposing, — if, I say, in spite of that burden, the businessman does manage to accumulate enough to give him a secure retirement after working himself to death for 45 years, then he is called one of “The Privileged” by demagogues like John Edwards, who seems to like to stir up class animus in America, and who is so morally bankrupt and depraved that he even opposes legalized medical cannabis, according to NORML., at least at the time of his run for the vice-Presidency.
F A Hayek, Nobel-prize winning economist, (and the other prominent economist of the “Gang of 3” of the Austrian Economists made up of Von Mises, the father of the modern school, Hayek and Rothbard) in several interviews and articles in the 1990’s, states that Libertarianism differs radically from Conservatism is many ways. Hayek decried the use of the cumbersome term “Libertarianism” and pointed out that his own philosophy could best be described as “old liberal” and that the ‘old liberals’ had been the ones in the British parliament who had sided with and supported the American call for Independence. This faction was known by the moniker “The Whigs”, and Silverwolf thinks this is an appropriate appelation given his long furry mane, and the forest of bristles that burst forth like liberty all over his muzzle. ‘Whig’, it has a certain simplicity to it parallel to the simplicity of the libertarian principles of the free market (almost like some entymologist in the sky was looking down of an ant colony of humans running helter-skelter engaging in frenetic economic activity of a thousand different kinds), a clear simplicity one finds in the writings of Hayek.
So Silverwolf now knows what he is. He is a Whig. He will not cut his main, nor shave his muzzle until a Whig Libertarian is elected President.