Archive for the ‘economics’ Category

West Coast Democrats Crucify Black Youth: The Minimum Wage Law Nail

September 24, 2013

It looks like Democratic Governors Jerry Brown and John Kitzhaber have been taking turns smashing that final bolt into the right hand of Black Youth as they nail them down from any opportunity to earn some money, and crucify them with inaction at a time in their lives when they desperately need money, and the experience of handling it.

California’s raise of its minimum wage to $10/hr, and Oregon’s to $9.15/hr will crucify the Black Youth of both states, for, at such absurdly high wage levels, it is highly unlikely that many of them will be able to make enough profit for their employers that it becomes profitable to hire them. As usual, the well-fed, well-paid Democratic and Republican legislators who passed these heinous Bills will not mention the horrendous effects it will have on hundreds of thousands of lives in these two States. The Black Youth who will remain unemployed, though a job just came up that could have employed him at the old minimum wage rate but which can’t afford to employ him at the new one, and the White teenager who will also remain unemployed, or be laid off because his employer is now losing money on his labor, not making it, — both of these are the primary victims of the Democrat’s vile and successful attempt to disemploy them, so as to eliminate competition in the labor market and thus artificially boost the wages of union workers, who can live high on the misery of young Blacks.

What gives these millionaire and near-millionaire White Men the Right to ruin the lives of these young Black Men with their Fascistic minimum wage law, one of the key demands of the Communist manifesto? What gives these arrogant mountebank politicians the Right to keep a young Black Man unemployed for years in his youth, never gaining the skills he might have gained on a job if he had freely negotiated his wage with his employer on the Free-Market, as Free Men do, but who must submit himself to the Fascist whims of Rich White Men in the California and Oregon Legislatures, just as the Southern Slaves had to submit themselves to the whims of their Miscreant White Owners, Criminals all. And Rich White Men Politicians can include Blacks and Latinos, to their shame, as they vote to hold down those that share their cultural background and knowledge.

But the minimum wage law does not just crucify Black Youth disproportionally, it also cruelly victimizes two other groups in society: the small business man and the consumer on a fixed income, such as a government pension.

The small business man, better known as a Capitalist, is now forced to either make less profit, which will mean the end of his business if he was just scraping by before the minimum wage rise, or to put up the price of his goods to cover the wage cost increase, since it is generally estimated that labor costs constitute roughly 70% of the final cost of a product. This, in turn, causes more inflation in society, and inflation is what brings about social chaos and Fascism. The Democrats, so ignorant of economics, are bringing about the rise of the Nazis with their minimum wage increases.

The final group to be crucified by the Democrat’s minimum wage hike are the millions in these two States on fixed incomes, who can barely keep up with the tripleing and quadrupleing of the cost of their basic necessities that the Democrat’s inflation (with much help from the FED and Quisling-Republicans) has engineered in the last seven years. Now that the minimum wage has tragically hit $10, fresh accelerations in inflation will be forthcoming, and many elderly will die as they cut back on food and heat. But don’t expect the Democratic legislators and Governors to be charged with their murder, or to attend their funerals. Just like the lives of the Young Black Men which have been ruined by this law, just like the lives of the White teenagers that have been derailed by this law, just like the lives of the many Free-Market Capitalist small Businessmen who will have to shut their doors, or never open them in the first place, and just like the lives of the elderly Democratic pensioner, whose lifetime pension has just been significantly reduced in its purchasing power by inflation, — just like all these groups, the deaths of the elderly from self-neglect will not be reported in the press.  And just like these four groups that suffer such damage from this malevolent law, so too will this Fascistic, inflationary, Government intrusion into the Free Market for Labor hurt you, as you pay through the nose for every little service. These Miscreants have destroyed the value of the Dollar, and vomited on the ideas of Saving and Frugality.

California and Oregon Democrats —- you wanted inflation and unemployment and you’re going to get it. Enjoy your poverty, Fascists!

Hooooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwww! — Silverwolf

Advertisements

Is it Constitutional in America to Discriminate in a Business? An Internal Debate

August 5, 2013

Silverwolf cleared the decks of his internal Parliament, and presented to the tabula rasa MP’s the following question: Should it be legal and is it constitutional to discriminate, on whatever basis one wishes, in one’s business in America? For example, should it be legal for an American Citizen, of Turkish cultural background and ethnicity, to refuse to sell to American-Armenians, or not let them in his store, which is open otherwise to the general public?

Obviously, this was one of the key questions and objections in the Civil Rights Act of 1963, Few doubted that picketing in protest outside of a business was a legitimate exercise of Free Speech Rights as long as the thoroughfare was kept open to the flow of pedestrians, but was it legal to enter the premises and then sit-in, in effect crippling the owners ability to do business?

This was the question that tormented Silverwolf through the long, stormy, frigid nights of the winter of ’11. Tossing and turning in his wolf’s lair, Silverwolf debated with himself this key issue which is so weighty for American jurisprudence and political theory.

First off, if I can discriminate in whom I let into my private residence, why should I not be able to discriminate in whom I let into my business premises? The meateater, the Nazi, the hunter, the fisherman, the vivisectionist, and the Stalinist all pay taxes, but if I choose not to let them into my private residence or property, nobody cries foul or racial discrimination. So why should it be different for a business?

I put this question to the late Blue Dog, a bluedog Democrat. His snap answer was that businesses were there to serve the public.

Silverwolf chewed this over, but it seemed a little idealistic to him after a few hours mulling. Come on, businesses ain’t there to serve the public; they’re there to make a profit for the owners and stockowners, and they wouldn’t start it if they didn’t think they would materially gain from it (unless they were a Good Samaritan starting the business solely to serve the public, with no interest in any profits over and above those necessary for a rude self-maintenance — not your typical business owner in America). The businessmen’s interest in profit, to further their personal pleasures, was no different than my interest in my own personal pleasure in keeping the meateater, the hunter, and the Nazi out of my desmesne, even though the meateater, hunter and Nazi might all pay taxes that pay for police and fire protection that benefits me and my property, and from which they are excluded. If it’s fair for me to exclude them from my Residential Property, why is it unfair, and even immoral, for them to deny me access to their business property, simply because I’m a wolf?

This really puzzled Silverwolf, and he recalled that Senator Barry Goldwater had objected to the Civil Rights Act precisely on this point of business owners being able to have property rights over their business premises.

Then Silverwolf argued with himself against this business discrimination with the following argument: the business district in town in limited to a certain area; if businesses were allowed to discriminate, it would be possible for a block of racist business owners to effectively exclude everyone in an area from vital necessities and services which would, de facto, force them to leave the area. For example, if all the hardware stores and food stores in the business district of a rural town were owned almost exclusively by a group of White racists, they could in effect make it impossible for all the Black people in an area to obtain the food and building materials they would need to survive in that area, and no new Black entrepreneurs could come into the market because the White racists held a virtual monopoly on all the available business licences and rentals.

Now this problem bifurcates into two problems for the Libertarian, for his reply might be that zoning laws are anti-Capitalist restrictions on Free-Market activity, and in a Libertarian society one could set up a business wherever one deemed fit. This would in effect end the monopoly on business licences that occurs when a business district is created, and business permits are required to conduct trade, that blatantly Communist restriction on Capitalism which has been so miserably tolerated for so long in America. This ending of business zoning would mean that would-be Black entrepreneurs could set up shop wherever they willed, and the racist monopoly over business licences and premises would be smashed.

But here we come to another problem in the road. So far, we have only discussed discrimination in those businesses which front onto public thoroughfares, and let’s assume for the moment that such discrimination is illegal exactly because these businesses, due to their location, can be called public businesses which have a moral duty under some undefined natural law to serve all customers, regardless of race, religion or creed. But what if we postulate a business that does not front onto a public thoroughfare, a business which was contained completely within the property of a private landowner? Should the owner of such a business be free to discriminate on the basis of race or religion?

For example, say a Korean Supremacist opens a business on a 40 acre parcel of land he is fortunate enough to own in the midst of a major downtown metropolis. The parcel is divided into two 20 acre parcels. He operates a public business that faces onto the public street in which he does not discriminate, located on the front 20 acres, But on the back 20 acres, which at no point border public property, he creates a 5 acre business zone, enclosed entirely by the private 20 acres, to which he will only permit admittance to those he regards as racially pure Koreans, who share his Korean-Supremacist views. No Whites or non-Koreans or “Whitey-lover” Koreans are allowed in this complex of stores, and the stores only accept Korean Won in payment. Is such a store illegal under the 1963 Civil Rights Act?

At this point, a great Rothbardian White Light seemed to blind Silverwolf, although he had his eyes closed to give his eyelid muscles their usual afternoon nap. He suddenly saw the solution to his dilemma, but it proved not to be final.

The solution was actually very simple. What does it say on the money? A Federal Reserve note, legal tender for all debts, public and private. It was herein that the solution lay.

If a Federal Reserve Note is legal tender and a store owner on a public street (or in a public announcement like a newspaper ad) advertises something for sale in his storefront window, then the asking price of that good or service becomes a private debt publicly advertised, and any person with the requisite amount of federal reserve notes should be able to satisfy that private debt and obtain the good or service touted. In other words, offering something for sale in terms of Federal Reserve Notes requires that you accept those notes from anyone who offers them if the private debt was publicly advertised. Not to do so would violate the contractual conditions printed on the money.

So the real reason why it is illegal to discriminate on business properties but not on private residence properties is because the Federal Reserve Note is legal tender for all debts, public and private, and anyone in America who has these notes has a right to exchange them for any publicly advertised private debt.

However, what would happen if we had precious metal coinage, as is stipulated by the U.S. Constitution? Since this coinage would not be a Federal Reserve Note, (and the Federal Reserve itself would hopefully not exist at that point) then it seems to us that the argument we made above, for non-discrimination when it comes to the use of Federal Reserve Notes, might no longer be valid. And the same problem might arise if the store only displayed its prices in foreign currency or currencies, since these are not legal tender for all debts public and private in America.

So under current law, could business owners legally discriminate against customers if they only accepted gold and silver (and copper?) coins or foreign currency as payment for their wares?

This question remains unanswered, and Silverwolf is still as Libertarianly-puzzled as before. As to what the truth of the matter is, and if there is an unshakeable political reason why discriminating in one’s business premises is immoral, it remains unclear to him.

Hoooooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww—Silverwolf

Uncle Ben Franklin’s Lessons in Capitalism: The Best of Poor Richard’s Dictums

August 4, 2013

For one taking the first steps upon the long Capitalist road from penury to wealth, there are few more valuable guideposts of Reason than the observations and wisdom of “Uncle” Benjamin Franklin, who was the physical embodiment of the economic philosophy of America. In his Poor Richard’s wise sayings, we find the basic wisdom that guided the men of the 18th century in their economic thinking, and which undoubtedly reflected a general psychology that must have existed for centuries before Franklin wrote down these gems of wisdom. Some of them are not originally Franklin’s, but come to us from general sayings of the times, or from various specific cultures. But they all seem to reflect a basic wisdom and insight into universal human behaviour when it comes to economic matters, and we can easily recognize ourselves and our own past economic follies when we read them.

Silverwolf read these when he was a wage-slave, beginning the miserable process of accumulating Capital, a process in which the first hundred steps are the hardest, and which, the longer one works at it, becomes easier and easier. They provided inspiration and insight into the truths of Capitalism and general human economic psychology that were invaluable, not only in observing ones own economic behaviour, but also in observing the behaviour of others. Make a foolish mistake and learn from it, and one will be able to recognize that mistake in others.

Anyway, for what it is worth, Silverwolf gathered together all the dictums of Poor Richard, published by Franklin in the 1730s and 1740s, and selected those which he thought were the most relevent to the budding Capitalist in terms of economic behaviour, but also those that reflected wisely on the necessary psychological outlook of the would-be Free-Marketeer. And here they are:

Light purse, heavy heart.

When bread is wanting, all is to be sold.

Would you live with ease, do what you ought, and not what you please.

Hope of gain, lessens pain.

All things are easy to industry, difficult to sloth.

Necessity never made a good bargain.

Diligence is the mother of good luck.

Wealth is not his who has it, but his who enjoys it.

He that buys by the penny maintains not only himself, but other people.

The use of money is all the advantage in having money.

If you have time, don’t wait for time.

There are three faithful friends, an old wife, and old dog, and ready money.

At a great pennyworth, pause a while.

Industry need not wish.

If you’d be wealthy, think of saving more than getting.

Industry, perserverance, and frugality make fortune yield.

Sloth (like rust) consumes faster than labour wears; the used key is always bright.

Light gains, heavy purses.

He that resolves to mend hereafter, resolves not to mend now.

Want of care does us more damage than want of knowledge.

What maintains one vice would bring up two children.

Many have be ruined by buying good pennyworths.

Tis a well-spent penny that saves a groat.

Great estates may venture more; little boats must keep to shore.

Patience in market is worth pounds in the year.

Diligence overcomes difficulties; sloth makes them.

Sloth moves so slowly that Industry must run all day to catch up to it.

Get what you can, and what you get hold, Tis the stone that will turn all your lead into gold.

Diligence is the mother of good-luck.

Creditors have better memories than debtors.

If you desire many things, many things will seem but a few.

After crosses and losses, men grow humbler and wiser.

The creditors are a superstitious sect, great observers of set days and times.

Buy what thou hast no need of, and e’er long thou shall sell thy necessaries.

Lend money to an enemy and thou’lt gain him, to a friend, and thou’lt lose him.

Lying rides upon Debt’s back.

Well done, is twice done.

He that hath a trade, hath an estate.

He that speaks ill of the Mare, will buy her.

If you’d lose a troublesome visitor, lend him money.

He who multiplies Riches, multiplies Cares.

The second vice is lying; the first is running in debt.

Wise men learn by other’s harms; Fools by their own.

Drink does not drown care, but waters it, and makes it grow faster.

The busy man has few idle visitors; to the boiling pot the flies come not.

If you’d know the value of money, go and borrow some.

Beware of little Expenses, a small Leak will sink a great ship.

He who buys had need have 100 eyes, but one’s enough for him that sells the stuff.

When the Well’s dry, we know the Worth of Water.

The Borrower is a Slave to the Lender, the Security to both.

Spare and have is better than spend and crave.

The Art of getting Riches consists very much in THRIFT. All men are not equally qualified for getting Money, but it is in the Power of every one alike to practice this Virtue.

Well, there you have it. All the distilled wisdom you need to set the Capitalist world on fire with your activities in the Market. Just add in a reading of Professor Murray Rothbard’s “Man, State, and Economy”, along with its adjunct, “Power and Market”, and you’ve got all the basic true knowledge you need to be a Capitalist.

Hoooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwww! — Silverwolf

Libertarianism and Socialism: Shared Concepts of Two Antagonistic Philosophies

July 21, 2013

One has talked (and is not writing, talking?) long and hard contra the Socialistic Philosophy of government, and taken it to task many times in our essays, but we cannot overlook the affinities, and, yeah, even the agreements of Libertarians and Socialists.

Firstly, Libertarians and virtually all Socialists agree, though they may not even be conscious of the fact, that they both accept the Industrial System as necessary to a viable modern society. There still may be a few Socialists who would like to smash the weaving looms of modern society, and return to a primitive society, where everything was handmade, where we gave up the automobile and returned to the horse, with its concomitant huge increase in futures trading in oat contracts, and crushed all the farm equipment, sending Bucyrus-Erie stock eerily lower, and where we reverted from the computer and the iphone to the letter and the smoke-signal. A return to the pre-Industrial Age would certainly solve the unemployment problem.

However, these primitive Socialists are few in number compared to all the Socialists in the world who just love all the comforts and distractions provided them by the Industrial System. And certainly the Democrats and Republicans—those milquetoast individuals who lack the clear or clouded passionate vision of the Libertarians and Socialists and fall somewhere ‘tween the two, — certainly those Lost Soles wandering away from Truth also accept the modern Industrial System as a given of modern society and their own individual enjoyment.

So virtually everybody agrees on the necessity of the modern Industrial System, and you can see this truth now throughout the world. The psyche of the Indian and the Chinese will soon be identical to the Wyoming Wyomian or the Battersea Londoner. We want our commodities, and we’re not going back to the “good ol’ days” of great-great-grandpa.

The key insight that Libertarians have over Socialists in this area is the necessity for the Libertarian, or Classical Liberal, for the Free-Market to exist in order for this industrial system to exist and thrive. Whenever government intervention or diktat interferes with the Free-Market, the Industrial System suffers because it needs that free-market to thrive. There has been so much wealth built up in America due to the relative freedom of its industrial sector heretofore, especially before the introduction of the income tax, that it has built up a huge capital reserve of this wealth, and government has been able to parasitically suck off that wealth for almost eighty years now, and even before. But as you can see, and as Mises predicted, middle-of-the-road Socialism eventually breaks down the entire economic order, and we can see that in America today very clearly, where things are far worse than thirty years ago, although we could see the emerging problem clearly even then. But the general public of Democrats and Republicans never or rarely see the connection between this middle-Socialism and the final economic breakdown of society, as we’re seeing in Greece, Portugal, Spain and Italy, because of the huge lag-time between Cause and Effect in the economic sphere.

A second affinity between Libertarianism and Socialism is their common view that there is a Ruling Class in society; they just differ on who that ruling class is.

To Libertarians, the Ruling Class are those people who have seized control of the State Apparatus, the Government, and are ruling the rest of Society. In the old days it was the King and the Nobles. Under the Czar, for example, it was the Czar, his family and relations, the other Russian nobles, the military men, the contractors who got the government purchase orders, and the vast bureaucracy, including all the retired bureaucrats drawing lucrative pensions. In North Korea, it is obviously the Illwind Kim family and the top military brass who are the Ruling Class.

In modern America, the Ruling Class are the people in government, both the politicians and the bureaucratic heads, the administrators, and generally the workers, who receive much higher pay and retirement benefits than those in the Free-Market sector. In addition to these, the ruling class includes the government contractors and consultants who do business with the State, as well as the corporations who get farm subsidies, the scientists and specialists working for government scientific departments, the university administrators and professors who draw huge salaries thanks to government subsidies to many favored universities, and of course the thousands of major corporations who benefit from government loans, subsidies, or craftily crafted tax breaks specific to their situations.

Finally, in America, the Ruling Class also includes the millions receiving welfare benefits or checks from the government every month who will go out and religiously vote for those parties or politicians who will guarantee that those benefits and checks will continue to flow. Thus, even many poor people are in the Ruling Class in America, although they might not see themselves that way, or may still complain about how they have been victimized by society, which in one sense is true since that has been a Socialist society essentially since FDR, and such a society crushes the Individual by dissipating his energy in a thousand useless activities that would not exist under a Libertarian government.

To the Socialists, however, the Ruling Class are the Capitalists, the people who pay the wages to the factory workers, even though these workers may have, for the first time in their lives, more money than they ever had before, and can experience the freedom to choose from many consumer products that they obviously feel make their lives more commodious. Few Americans would now use an old Sears Catalog or old newspapers for toilet paper, but in the 1930s and before, it was probably fairly common.

Moreover, these workers make possible the consumer products that the Socialist uses and likes just as much as the Libertarian. It seems contradictory for them to say, “Yes, we like all these products that the exploitative, wicked, industrial factory system makes possible, but we also want to “liberate” these workers from there drudgery.” And if they “liberated” them to the extent that nobody had any incentive to work at dull jobs, then their “bourgeois comforts” would quickly disappear. Did you notice how the Communist in “Reds” had to have her Chase&Sanborn coffee, and how Stalin and Castro were addicted to tobacco? Food could have been grown in place of all the coffee and tobacco Communists and Socialists have consumed since the start of their movement, and saved many from starvation. Masses of grain and potatoes could have gone into food feeding masses of Human Beings, instead of going into all the beer and vodka that German and Russian Socialists have drunk since the start of the Communist-Socialist project.

So Libertarians and Communists or Socialists agree that there is a Ruling Class in Society, they just differ radically as to who that Ruling Class is.

Another aspect of Socialism that is also embraced by Libertarianism is the essentially Libertarian quality of Democracy as a revolt against Monarchy or one-man rule or Totalitarianism. That everybody should get to decide equally on major decisions that affect large chucks of society is obviously much fairer than that one lunatic should get to make the decisions and all are forced at gunpoint to obey him.

However, despite its Libertarian quality, Democracy was soon seen to quickly decay into Mob Rule through Government, with Tyranny in the name of “the People” replacing Tyranny in the name of the King. This could only be corrected by a Bill of Rights for all Individuals, which would protect the minority and the Individual against the depredations of Society at large.

That struggle for the Bill of Rights is still being fought in America, 237 years after Jefferson wrote it down, and encapsulated in that document the essence of his studies of the Classical Liberals, or Libertarians, who came before him.

And so, both Libertarians and Socialists look favorably on Democracy as a reaction to Authoritarian Dictatorship or Monarchy, and as a process for electing people to public office. The Libertarians just also insists on a Bill of Rights, and say that Democracy without a Bill of Rights can and most probably will be just as tyrannical, if not more so, than Monarchy.

Finally, besides Libertarians, Socialists seem to be the only political group that has a passionate desire to radically change the world and society. Most Democrats and Republicans want things to roll on pretty much as they are now, with a little tinkering or reform to smooth out the thousand-and-one-insults to the psyche that psychic flesh is heir to in America. And Socialists have changed the societies they have taken over radically, though almost invariably to the worsement of their peoples, save for perhaps Yugoslavia under Tito when he backtracked and started his program of de-stateification, or a move back towards Free-Markets.

So while Libertarians and Socialists differ fundamentally over principles of political and economic theory, and individual rights, they do agree on a whole list of issues, and that should not be forgotten while they are ripping each other apart, politically speaking.

Hooooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwww—Silverwolf

The Only Welfare Program Necessary: Silverwolf’s Destitution Camps

July 6, 2013

In a recent post of Silverwolf, he posited the seeming dilemma between Free-Market Libertarian Capitalism, which would have no government welfare, having it handled solely by charities, but in a society that was so generally wealthy and sulf-sufficient that few had to go to charity organizations, — this Capitalism as contrasted with Socialism, where those Individuals who had and earned capital would have it taken by force by a group or gang, acting through the government, to spend it on what the gang considered welfare programs. One  philosophy might lead to a man or child starving to death on the street (and did before the 19th century Industrial Revolution in the West, and modern times in India), though it guarantees in theory that no violence will be done to anyone without government coming to his aid and prosecuting the perpetrators, including government perpetrators. This is the Jeffersonian-Libertarian philosophy of the America of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

The other Ideology, that of the Socialist, whether Democratic or Totalitarian, leads to a society where violence is permissible against the Individual (i.e. taxation and the threat of jail or bankruptcy if non-compliant with that taxation, i.e. coercion, which ultimately boils down, as Mao pointed out, to the barrel of a gun. ) Socialists permit violence against property in the name of promoting a just, peaceful society. That is a contradiction they not only don’t want to answer, but even gleefully endorse: Damn right we’re going to loot the rich to feed our poor brethren. Violence is what the rich deserve!

So between the “callous indifference” of those who refuse to commit violence unless attacked, and the “brotherly love” of those who would commit violence against others at gunpoint, there seems to be no meeting of the twain.

Silverwolf’s solution would be to follow the Free-Market Capitalist, Jeffersonian-Libertarian, Philosophy while maintaining, at least in a long interim of say ten years, a series of government-administered “Destitution Camps” across America.

These camps would provide succor to any American Citizen who found themselves completely broke, totally skint, down to the last nickel. Here, in these camps, they would find nutritious vegan food — whole grains, beans, fresh vegetables and fruits — without anything deleterious to the health being added to it (for example, salt), a basic change of clothing, and cot space or bunk space in a tent or barracks-building, etc. These would provide the basics of food, clothing, shelter, and sanitation. Inhabitants could choose to work off the cost of their keep by working at something useful in the camp, thus saving the government the cost of hiring workers to do these essential chores, and thus sparing the inhabitant from the dependent feeling that he was getting something for nothing. Depending on the current level of government debt (i.e. was it shrinking or growing, and at what pace?) there might even be an opportunity for people to work for profit on useful government infrastructure improvements and safety, for example, clearing roadside vegetation by hand instead of with pesticides in fire-prone rural-residential areas. This work might accrue them $10/day in savings, and when the person had accrued $3,000 or so, they would be ejected from the destitution camp, since they now had a few months living expenses in the outside world, and could try to make their own way. However, no inhabitant would be forced to work, although we can well imagine the effect on his social interaction with his chums if all nine of them went off to work to help keep up the camp, and he just sat around all day examining his navel (not so easy to do, try it).

Remember too that in our Libertarian-Capitalist society, business permits would be outlawed, and anyone could set up a vendor’s stall in publicly allotted market places, or on private property in contract with the owner. Vending would become a widespread occupation for many, and provide them with a living, but of course it is currently banned across the length and breadth of so-called Capitalist America, in her grandscale hypocrisy.

So vending and the elimination of all minimum wage laws would mean that many who would now have to resort to these camps under our current Fascistic mamma-Socialistic society, could find their way to self-sufficiency under a Libertarian-Capitalist society through vending and odd-jobbing.

But how would you fund these camps, Silverwolf? Aren’t you just back in the coercion camp of extracting taxes for what you, Silverwolf, arrogantly project as your own marvellous vision of the perfect society?

Well, not quite, because there would be no coercion involved in this taxation scheme, at least, no coercion of those who refuse to collaborate with coercion, and coercion of the deadliest kind.

Firstly, Silverwolf would ask for a “voluntary tax” to fund these camps. Since Americans under a Silverwolf government would be paying no income tax at all, and no social security or medicare deductions either if they had opted out of these programs, as they would have the Right to do under a Libertarian government, — because of these facts alone they would be far richer, and might feel or believe that they should give to this government destitution fund a small portion of what they used to be forced to pay for welfare costs under the old income tax, back in the wicked old days under the Democrats and Republicans. Hindu’s would no longer be robbed and have their religious principles desecrated by the Socialists in forcing them to pay for meat for the obese under the food stamp program. Muslims and Jews would no longer have to provide food stamps to be spent on dead pigs, nor would Atheists or Vegetarians be forced to pay for Hallal or Kosher meat. And Socialists could fulfill their dream of giving their neighbors something for nothing, just because they exist as human beings. Given the number of people in the Democratic Party and other parties, and in the major organized religions, that espouse their love for their fellow Americans and their belief in brotherly love, you’d expect that the coffers to fund these Destitution Camps would be overflowing.

But say the “voluntary tax” brought in nothing because the people had grown completely callous and stingy, and, even with no income tax, they still wouln’t contribute a red cent to Silverwolf’s pie-in-the-sky Destitution Camps, or contributed in such short measure so that the camps got some donations, but not enough to prevent them “slipping into the Red” as the Communists say? Then what, Silverwolf?

Then Silverwolf would propose to Congress a 1% excise tax on imports from countries that did not substantially comply with the Classical Liberal principles of Jefferson found in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, or with regimes that did have such constitutions but were generally conceded not to protect the rights those constitutions guaranteed. In other words, the world’s dictatorships, totalitarian regimes, or regimes that had wide-spread human rights abuses without any legal retribution taken against the perpetrators, especially government perpetrators.

Also regimes that treated certain animals in certain cruel and inhumane ways.

So, for example, Red Chinese imports would get “hit” with a 1% excise tax that the consumer would pay when he purchased the product, mainly because of its massive Human Rights Crimes, but also for crimes against animals, like dogs, cats and bears. Japan would get it for their whale hunting, but not for any human rights abuses. Western Democracies would be exempted, except for Canada, due to its clubbing and live-skinning of baby seal pups in front of their mothers. Short that Cannuck Buck!

The excise tax would also apply to countries, like South Korea, that ate dogs, and let them be treated and murdered in the most bestial and sadistic manner.

And since Red China and Seal-clubbing Socialist Canada are the U.S.A.’s two-largest trading partners, Silverwolf’s anti-Fascist excise tax on products from these two putrid countries would easily fund these Destitution Camps.

People who did not want to pay the excise tax could avoid it by buying the same product that was made in Red China or Canada, from Taiwan or Lichtenstein instead, so there would be no coercion involved in the paying of the tax. The only infringement is on that of the consumer who was willing to collaborate with these murdering, torturing regimes by buying their products. The Moral Libertarian will not be dirtying his hands with the blood of Chinese dissidents or Labradorian seal pups, when he buys his baseball cap made in the Netherlands instead of Sinjiang, or his condoms made in the Falklands instead of Alberta ( the recent floods prove that those made in Calgary leak).

Anyway, Silverwolf believes his Destitution Camp scheme would be the only welfare program necessary in America, except for a few possible programs like care of orphans or those in iron lungs, or those suffering from severe dementia, although in our envisioned prosperous Free-Market society, such programs would almost certainly be funded and run effectively by private charities, nurtured by the largesse of wealthy Individuals.

Silverwolf’s Destitution Camps: the only welfare program necessary in America.

Hoooooooooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwww! — Silverwolf

The Paranoia of Absolute Power: From King John to Modern America

June 26, 2013

It seems that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were, unfortunately, dead right. ‘Twould be much better if absolute power made the Chief into a benevolent angel, using his power for moral ends, to better the lives of the people in one way or another, if only to get out of their way.

In the future perfect Capitalist society, where the industrious will happily work at their callings, and be materially rewarded for it, and those who wanted little but the freedom to wander, or write poetry, could go to voluntary welfare societies set up by Capitalists who believed in Socialism, — in that society there will be no coercion. One Capitalist may be greedy, but another Capitalist may be a Socialist who thinks that  everyone is entitled to the basics of food (vegan of course), clothing, and shelter. The Socialist-believing Capitalist could donate, or set up himself,  a charity, and set the rules according to his Moral Views. Such a man might agree with Erich Fromm”s argument for Socialism, once made in an interview with Los Angeles television reporter Jerry Dunphy,: “You don’t expect your dog to work. But you feed him. I think a man should be treated as well as a dog.”

Such an argument carries much weight with Silverwolf. But it presupposes and forgets two facts: Firstly, while I may feel compassionate enough to give a meal to a hungry man, the next fellow on the block may not feel the same way, and I don’t have the right to impose my moral beliefs on my neighbor. As a Libertarian, I am only concerned with his actions; and that those actions do not constitute a violation of the Libertarian non-aggression axiom: No man or group of men may aggress against the Person or Property of another man. Such an aggression is regarded by the Libertarian as “invasion”, and it is. Such an invasion is a Crime against the Property Rights of that Man, and since we own our bodies, an attack on our persons is also technically a violation of Property Rights.

Secondly, the Socialist argument above flounders in the face of the fact that by confiscating, or voting to confiscate from my neighbor, money or “taxes” to fund my own personal Socialistic moral views, I am committing an act of Violence against my neighbor, which in itself, is a form of treating a Man like a dog, the very argument used above to justify Socialism.

So, what are we to do in the face of this inconsistency between Capitalism and Socialism?

To Silverwolf the answer lies in a radically free-Capitalist free-market society, where 95% of all people had voluntarily, through no coercion, found something they loved or liked to do, and so there would be a vast Middle Class. Some people, who for their own personal reasons, wanted to accumulate truly vast amounts of Capital and Wealth, could go ahead and do so, but most people would be satisfied with a type of upper class-Middle Class life, choosing leisure and amusement over passion-driven, fanatical accumulation. Emelda Marcoses could accumulate 700 pairs of shoes if they liked, but most sane people would settle for three to seven. More than that would become encumberences to all but the collector.

In this Free-Market  prosperous Free Society, with Thomas Jefferson’s Bill of Rights rigorously enforced, a certain percentage of people would be inclined to give to charity, which would, in turn, support those who were completely physically disabled, like someone in an iron lung, or those who wanted to live completely outwardly indolent lives, but focus all their energy on the Inner Life. These would be called Philosophers and Poets, but the Philosophers and Poets would know that if the people ever became hardened enough, they might stop giving to charity, and then the Philosophers and Poets would have to deal with a precarious situation.

All these arguments are pretty academic now that we live in a world where, given the capacities of our factories, everyone could easily be given a daily ration of grains and beans, a few Mao Suits to wear during the year, and a tent that could easily be Solar Heated. Mist collectors, as we recently saw reported, can now collect and condense enough water out of the air that people can survive on it in very dry climates or areas without a well. (Just the thing you need next time you break both your ankles hiking in Chemehuevi Valley, and your car battery goes dead when you try to start it.) With such condensers,  many desert areas could become livable again. Composting toilets, and the sanitary advantages of the vegan diet, or even charity built septic systems, could serve individuals or tribes when it came to the unthinkables of these few Philosophical Indigents and Poets. (But who would read them, or join in their philosophical explorations? The rest of Mankind would be busily working away at their Callings, havin’ a great ol’ time.) Some Philosophers and Poets would even be so brilliant and engrossing that their productions of Thought and Word would sell on the open- and Free-market, and they’d grow wealthy. Look at the Stones. Jagger is a Damn Good Poet.

But say we didn’t live in such a world. Say that five or ten men owned all the land in America, that they could charge a grand-a-night rent for every man, woman, and child, and since they owned all the agricultural land, they could charge a $100/lb for cornmeal and oats, those delicacies of a vegan society. Obviously people would starve to death, and there would soon be five or ten men left, and their families, and maybe some favored buddies and their concubines.

 Such circumstances of material inequality, Professor Rothbard maintained, only exist where the Crime of Land Theft has taken place in the past, as in Central and South America, and, on a local scale, in parts of the Old American West. In other words, such inequality indicates a massive violation of the Libertarian non-aggression principle, and would have to be rectified.

But in a truly Free-Market Jeffersonian Bill of Rights Society, with a vast Middle Class, no such draconian inequality would be possible. Monopolies and Trusts, though they may exist in certain markets and local economies, soon break down, as happened over and over again to the various “Trusts” in America, because of the phenomenon of the “Price Buster”, the guy in the Monopoly or Trust who starts giving secret kickbacks to favored customers in order to take advantage of the absurd price rise the Trust has created. This happened in Sugar, Kerosene, Train Freight Charges — every kind of Trust. They always went Bust. That is, until they learned to have Government help them restrict competition, from FCC licenses to Teaching Credentials to Barbers Licenses to the Screen Actors Guild, to that crucifier of Youths, the Minimum Wage Law.

So the arguments Socialists always pull out, about how a free-Market would lead back to the poverty of the 19th century and the robber barons, is absurd, and obviously a lie to justify their religion. The Industrial Revolution, as harsh and brutal as it was, had led by the 1920s to the possibility of a comfortable, Middle Class society, although still in the 1920s, 90% of Americans were poor farmers. But the momentum of prosperity was clearly there, and now in 2013 we have an absolutely incredible technological society, so complex that no individual can hope to understand it all, unlike the American Indian and the Kalahari Bushman who could completely understand their environment. They knew Everthing they needed to survive, and were Masters at it. We know nothing, except perhaps our little niche.

For example, in the future, modern  factories could easily manufacture super suits of clothes that were especially perfect for each of the four seasons. Each citizen could buy, or would be given by the Socialist charities, one or four of these suits, and that is all the clothing they would need. The suits would last a few years or decades. But the suits would probably be boring and functional, like Mao suits, as sterile and heartless as the modern bureaucratic services one sees in Great Britain, Australia, and America Northern. Only those who worked would have the capital to obtain their clothing on the free market, where they could satisfy their personal predelictions, like the late Brian Jones, or the connoisseurs of Saville Row.

One thing the anti-Capitalists don’t like to admit is that as people as a whole get wealthier, and the Middle Class grows, the number of goods and services that people want increases, providing more work or jobs, in increasingly more specialized areas, thus creating an even more prosperous society. There would be no end to this in a truly Free-Market society. In a poor society, a hungry arthritic pensioner is not going to hire someone to walk their beloved dog; in an upper-Middle Class society it is possible, and so someone who is unemployed but loves both to walk and to be with dogs, may and probably will be able to earn a wage. In a wealthy Rich society, you might even have those who specialized in walking certain breeds, or had a magical rapport with such breeds, and their wealthy arthritic owners might pay through the nose to hire such people to walk their dogs. Such walkers might become wealthy and noted celebrities, (and then there would be the profits from their book sales when they retire: “Vicious Great Danes I Have Known and Loved”).

But all this wealth, Freedom, and non-coercion is only possible if that Free Society has the Jeffersonian Bill of Rights, and it is here that we see in the Modern World the greatest threat to that great Capitalist Libertarian Society.

Sadly, very sadly for America, the fact that the two most powerful other monolithic Powers in the Modern World. who are completely anti-Libertarian in their attitudes and rule (Russia and the Old Soviet Republics, and Fascist China) and ruled by Paranoid, self-delusional Powermongers, are now in the process of being joined by the one place in the world where there still seemed to be some remaining spark of Libertarian creativity and Freedom left: The United States of America.

That was solely due to the Bill of Rights, and the fact that a large part of her economy was still in the hands of private Capitalists (the Small Businessman and the Investor). But these two Siamese twins, the Bill of Rights and Free-Market Capitalism, were dependent on one clear inalienable Right: the Right of Privacy.

It seems that when the Paranoia of Absolute Power strikes, it strikes first at this sacred, Natural Right, the Right of Privacy, the Right to be left alone if one is not violating the Libertarian Non-Aggression Axiom. This is what that beautiful thinker, Jefferson, as well as Madison and many of the others, could see so clearly, and what the modern politicians are trying to overthrow: that Beautiful Fourth Amendment.

They’ve succeeded in that overthrow of Privacy in the Totalitarian Societies, like Fascist China, and all the dozens of other unspeakable dictatorships that curse this globe, be it North Korea or Zimbabwe.

And they’ve succeeded in the castrated Socialist societies like Australia, where the Australian Board of Statistics can throw you in jail and fine you $170/day if you do not answer questions about your sex life, as we recently saw on a report. And England and the EU, where the individual is tracked and kept track of, from Birth to Death. Never his own Man, but always a cog in the Socialist Machine.

And now, thanks to the Paranoiac in the White House, and the Politicians of both Parties, this violation of the Right of Privacy is coming to America.

Sir Richard Evans, in his brilliant series of lectures on Victorian England, pointed out that it was entirely possible for a man to go through life in Victorian England without ever once having had contact or engagement with Government or the State.

Not so in Modern America, with her dog-sniffing random searches of law-abiding motorists, or Socialist Australia, or Fascist China.

When the Lords put the squeeze on King John, he was forced to cede to them with Magna Carta, and Libertarian Freedom had its first Outbreak.

But when we come to the psycopathic Criminals and Mass Murderers, Hitler and Stalin, we can see what those who achieve absolute power, by absolutely destroying Privacy, are capable of doing. And the more power they have, the more paranoid and bloodthirsty they become. It’s almost like a Law of Nature, a Law that Thomas Jefferson well understood. Go read defecting former-KGB agent Oleg Gordievsky’s great “KGB: the Inside Story”, and you will see what Absolute Power does to the men at the top, as we are now seeing in America, as it becomes more and more a bureaucratic police state, that can harass anyone who criticizes it.

The road from The Lords of England’s victory over King John with Magna Carta, to the Libertarian Jefferson’s victory over King George III with the Bill of Rights, was a long one.

The degeneration from Hitler and Stalin until today is a short one, made all the more sinister by the perversions of modern science and technology. And the Politicians are exploiting that technology to overthrow the Bill of Rights, a Bill that doesn’t talk of “balance” when it comes to Natural Rights, but “Inalienable Rights”, Rights that can never be taken away from any Human Being without violence being perpetrated.

Is Mankind to go forward into a bright upland of Prosperity, non-coercion, and Privacy, or is he to be the plaything of Socialists and Fascists like the head of Fascist China, or the sexually-prying questions of a perverted Hag like Australia’s PM, Julia Gillard?

Strangely enough, Silverwolf believes that Libertarian Man will eventually Prevail over the Fascism and Socialism of the modern Politicians at the top.

Hoooooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwww! — Silverwolf

Brazil, Turkey, USA: Libertarianism is Bustin’ Out All Over

June 21, 2013

Libertarianism is bustin’ out all over. In Brazil, in Turkey, and in America, the People are rising up against the Fascism and corruption of so-called Social Democracies, and in the first two countries are taking to the streets.

In Brazil, the “social Democracy” of former Marxist-guerilla Rousseff, bloated with the graft and corruption we usually see in America, is causing millions to take to the streets. Even the usual Roman payoffs of bread and circus, in Brazil exemplified by the social doles and massive spending on the World Cup, is not having its anticipated effect of quieting the populace, while corrupt politicians are left to go there way instead of being confined to jail cells where they belong.  Fascist Government is unable to control the situation, and is suddenly reduced to having to use the feebleness of words in the face of the righteous indignation of the People. The raising of bus fares to the poor and middle class commuters, while Brazilian politicians loot millions and walk away unmolested for their crimes, has brought out a million souls in protest. Perhaps they do not know that they are Libertarians — disciples of the philosophy of Thomas Jefferson which rests on Inalienable Individual Rights — a Philosophy that would have precluded the rule of the Criminals Hitler and Stalin. But the demonstrators feel Libertarian in their bones, as all self-respecting Human Beings do, and the Fascist State is powerless in the face of such mass action.

In Turkey, the Islamo-Fascism of the Racist Erdogan is also sparking a wave of Libertarian protest, although again many of the youths and protesters do not realize that what they long for is the Freedom of the Individual from unjust government interference in their lives. But they know that what the government does stinks of injustice, and injustice directed at their own lives and Liberty. Like Hitler and Stalin, Erdogan’s only weapon is police terror. Hopefully it will finally fail to intimidate the People.

In America, the massive violations of the Fourth Amendment by the Fascist Obama and his Democratic Party have destroyed the illusion that the Fascist in the White House is some kind of saint. Obama’s popularity is plunging, and the Democratic Party hacks know that there is a nightmare approaching in the form of next years midterm elections. Belief in government has crashed, fortunately for Human Liberty, though the Fascist can try to buy it off with foodstamps, and the pablum of PBS propaganda. And now the Fascist Obama has even had the gall to begin negotiations with the Taliban terrorists, the group that we have supposedly been fighting and dying for in Afghanistan, in effect legitimizing their claim to being a valid political entity. The massive cost in lives and money is suddenly swept away in one ruling by the Fascist Obama, or is this an instruction to the President by his Jew-hating Defense Secretary, Senator Hagel? The anti-Fascist historian Dave Emory even reports that the Department of Homeland Security is currently being infiltrated by members of the Nazi-inspired Muslim Brotherhood, which is now instigating a wave of terror against secularists and Christians in Egypt.

All over the world, people are getting sick and tired of Fascist, anti-Libertarian regimes, both religious and secular, and the People are taking to the streets and the blogways, though whether it will lead to a genuine Jeffersonian-Libertarian Revolution like the American Revolution, or merely a modification and continuation of the Fascist-Collectivist State is still uncertain.

But it is clear that things will never be the same again for the Fascist-Government Miscreants of Brazil, Turkey and the USA.

Hooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwww! — Silverwolf

Obama and The Bipartisan Fascists Attack Privacy and Capitalism

June 13, 2013

Once again, thanks to the voters who voted for Obama, Fascism is on the rise, reaching peaks it had not achieved since the days of Hitler and Mussolini. Its animosity towards Individuality and Privacy are well noted, and now the very people who put the Fascist Obama into the White House are cringing with fear as they realise that every intimate revelation, every minor misdemeanor, and every detail of their private lives, and business and financial transactions, have undoubtedly been stored and perhaps seen by one of the thousands of private contractor NSA financial snoopers. Soon all their medical history and conditions will also be up for blackmail, thanks to Obamacare. Capitalism and the free-market have been dealt a blow that they will probably never recover from. For Obama voters, and the rest of us, it’s too late.

Undoubtedly, many people will be blackmailed by NSA snoopers who now know intimate secrets about them. Their financial deals and trades, their sitting orders to buy or sell, can now be frontrun by NSA snoopers who can give this information to their friends, family, and business associates. The absolute necessity of Privacy to the conduct of the Free-Market has been forever destroyed by a coalition of Liberal Democrats like political commentator John Rothmann, who strongly supported Obama’s reelection, and Fascist Republicans like Lindsey “Cracker” Graham, who doesn’t mind that your Privacy has be destroyed.

However, the real criminals in this case are the people who voted for Obama over anti-Fascist choices like Congressman Ron Paul and Governor Gary Johnson. The Obama Voters have destroyed the Fourth Amendment, the inalienable Right to Privacy that Jefferson so well understood, and Free-Market Capitalism, all by sticking that stylus through the name of Barack Obama in the voting booth. The crimes that they have committed in their private lives and have put online in emails and social media are now stored on vast databanks, waiting to be used against them if they ever threaten the Fascist’s powerstructure. Thanks to their stupidity, faith in government, and lack of political science knowledge, the Obama voters have elevated the Fascist State to a new level of power.

The only benefit of all this is that now a vast swathe of the public has become deeply cynical about Collectivist Politics. They remember that Democrat Party Liberals like Oregon’s Peter DeFazio, Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley, who now are making such a big stink about their own privacy being invaded, were the very ones who only a few months ago were urging the people to reelect the Fascist Obama. And they continue to remain in the Fascistic Democratic Party, while the Republican Fascists actually are endorsing this heinous overthrow of the Bill of Rights under the Fascist Obama, showing that they haven’t changed much since the days of the Fascist Bush (the second one), save for the exception of Senator Rand Paul.

With a new Gallop Poll showing only 10% of the public think Congress is doing a good job, the only good news coming out of this is that there is a growing Libertarian revulsion amongst the public against the intrusions of the Fascist State against the Individual and his most intimate secrets. They now feel instinctively that Jefferson was right in saying that government is a necessary evil, but at heart an evil institution, and that its evil can only be kept in check when tied down by the Bill of Rights. But the Democratic Party politicians and voters have put an end to the Bill of Rights, now a part of past History.

The damage done to Privacy and Capitalism is irreparable. Thanks to the Obama Voters and the Bipartisan Fascist Politicians, Human Freedom has been destroyed in America.

Hooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwww! — Silverwolf

Libertarianism and the Dumbing-Down of Harvard

May 10, 2013

Silverwolf was actually astonished and flabbergasted today when he stumbled across a youtube video entitled “Harvard Lecture on Libertarianism”. Astonished and flabbergasted, not because of any especial brilliance of the lecture, although it was interesting and touched on many relevent Libertarian principles, but because of the virtually-complete inanity and inarticulateness of the students when asked to argue first the con- and then the pro- sides of Libertarianism. Though these were Harvard students, supposedly amongst the brightest in the nation, virtually every student who spoke could not speak in complete sentences, seemed to wander vaguely in their answers, and could not help polluting their rhetoric with a constant dribble of “you know”s, “I mean”s, verbal pauses, and unconnected phrases.

What first astonished Silverwolf was the fact that the uploader completely failed to mention the lecturer’s name, which seems like an incredible oversight. And even more incredibly, not one of the commenters mentioned his name, nor asked who he was. That’s unbelievably negligent.

The lecturer did, however, speak in complete, holistic sentences, since he had obviously come of age before the computer, and still spoke like a Human Being. His lecture was very good, but it too was amazing and astonishing in that no where in the lecture did he mention the founder of the American Libertarian Party, Professor Murray Rothbard, nor any of the prominent Free-Market Capitalist Economists on which modern Libertarianism is based: Bohm-Bawerk, Mises, and Hayek. Neither did his lecture forcefully stress the intimate and necessary connection between Libertarianism and free-markets, though free-markets were mentioned numerous times.

The lecturer also simplistically defined Libertarianism as “self-possession” or “self-ownership”, but he never once articulated the core Libertarian axiom, which states that “no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of any individual man.”

Finally he slipped the traditional piece of mainstream propaganda into the lecture by mentioning the “Libertarian economist”, Milton Friedman. As we demonstrated in our blog post “Ron Paul and Murray Rothbard vs. Milton Friedman and the Collectivists”, Murray Rothbard, in a 1971 interview with The Banner, clearly argues and proves that Friedman was no Libertarian, but actually a Statist, although on certain points he took a Libertarian position. And certainly, in comparison to the prevailing philosophy of big government of his time, Friedman was much more Libertarian and pro-free markets than virtually all well-known economists. He was a comparative Libertarian in a Statist age, but not a real one.

And the fact that “The Austrian School of Economics”, the backbone of modern Libertarianism, was not mentioned even once in the lecture, despite Hayek having been awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics, is scandalous. But it shows how even Harvard tries to mold the brains of the young.

In listening to the inarticulate students trying to explain why overthrowing property rights was OK if it “helped the poor”, and to the girl who was an outright collectivist who said that we didn’t have self-ownership, that we belonged to the society and so have to “give up” our rights, and so government could tell us what to do and extract labor from us, Silverwolf could see how Socialist propaganda has been fed to these students throughout their earlier school days, where they were probably told that “it takes a village”.

And in one sense, it does: A village of Libertarians.

For example, anti-Libertarian Raoul spouted that “we get our rights from the government”, evidently disagreeing with Thomas Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence of the United States, that we are endowed by our creator with certain “unalienable” rights, which means they can never be taken away. Raoul seemed to think though that the government gave us our rights, and so if the democratic majority makes a rule, even if it violates our rights, then everyone must obey, and if you don’t like it, you’re free to emigrate.

Neither the Prof, nor the three students arguing the pro-Libertarian position, seemed to catch Raoul’s initial falsehood that “we get our rights from the government”. And later, when students brought up the old Liberal illusion that “society has given you these things and so you owe back to society the taxes you pay”, the pro-Libertarians never called into question whether this fictional “society” even exists.

Notice how easily so many people accept the fictions of “society”, ” the People”, “the Nation”, when in reality there are only Individuals, with Individual Rights. This is one of the key insights of Libertarianism, and one of the reasons why the anti-Libertarian ideologues get so confused. “Society” does not exist; only you and the other individuals exists, each one, simultaneously, and it is the interactions and relationships between all these individuals that make up society. The Democrats and Republicans who believe in the income tax, or other taxes to fund programs other than the defense of persons and property (i.e. the police and courts, and the military), have had to invent this fictional idea of “society” or the Nation. But Society does not exist; only Individual lives exist.

So, the defenses of the Libertarians to these attacks seemed to constantly miss the key philosophical reason which would have clearly defended their position. That such shoddy thinking could emerge from so many students. who are supposedly top-notch intellectually, was indeed chilling. If these are the best and the brightest of this country, America is in big trouble.

These inarticulate students also seemed to conform to many of the characteristics that we read of recently on a website which responded to our discussion of the computer, and its effect on the degeneration of the Human Mind. We posited in that post that computers were subtly reconditioning the way the Human Mind functioned, and that the young who were growing up with computers were completely conditioned by this upbringing in a way which those who grew up in the pre-computer days were free of. (A computer glitch having wiped out that week’s browsing history, we are unfortunately unable to give the name of that website. which was in both English and German.)

That website discussed an article which listed 10 characteristics of these new cyber-conditioned children. For example, they pressed buttons with their thumbs instead of their index fingers. They had trouble concentrating. They couldn’t talk in complete sentences. They showed a lack of consideration of the consequences of their actions on others. It was a drearily accurate picture of the youth Silverwolf has observed being completely taken over by the computer during the past decade, so that silence, and silent meditation or long periods of sustained cogitation on one topic, become impossible for such a conditioned brain. The Harvard student’s lack of insight and inability to think in complete sentences seemed universal. Silverwolf used to hear more cogent discussions in High School.

After hearing the unthoughout blatherings of these inarticulate students at Harvard, Silverwolf is more convinced than ever that a new Human Mind is emerging which is so heavily cyber-conditioned that it is completely unaware of the way in which it has been thus conditioned, and so is virtually unable to break out of this syndrome and de-condition itself.

Can Libertarianism, the Philosophy of Natural Rights, overcome this brainwashing of the mass of young people, even the so-called brightest? We doubt it, but it had better do so or we’re doomed.

Hoooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwww! — Silverwolf

Libertarians: Capitalists or Free-Marketeers?

April 12, 2013

In re-reading Professor Murray Rothbard’s wonderful essay, “Capitalism vs. Statism”, we were reminded that “capitalism” is a term invented by Marx and used by the Marxists. In contrast to this is the idea of the “free-market”, which arises naturally whenever men are left to their own devices, as in a peasant or jungle society. It needs no central planning, as each man produces or does what he has in abundance or trades his unique skills for the products of other producers, without any coercion. Any contractual disputes between producers and consumers are brought before the wise elders of the community or tribe, and settled.

So, this distinction set us thinking about whether we should use the term “capitalist” at all, and choose rather to employ the term “free-marketeer” in its place. Is not using a term coined by Marxists to describe the free-market  playing into their hands?

Indeed, what image does the term “capitalist” conjure up in the mind? Does it not mean someone whose one drive is to acquire capital, or money? In other words, someone obsessed with money? In getting this term dispersed in wide-spread usage, the Marxists have achieved a popular view that capitalists are money-obsessed individuals.

Now, what does the term “free-marketeer” imply? Much more that someone who is money-obsessed. Firstly, it stresses that one wants freedom not only for oneself, but for the other party in the transaction. And also, one wants freedom for everybody else doing transactions, and making markets. Freedom for all! Not just for me. Secondly, it shifts the emphasis from the money-half of the transaction to the commodity-half of the transaction. In other words, the true free-marketeer is interested in the commodity he is either getting, or getting rid of in the market, much more than the money-half of the transaction. Certainly, the seller is very interested in taking receipt of the asking price in terms of cash, but that cash is almost always as a means to some commodity or service that the seller values. The wealthy seller may find it in the added security of having his cash balance just a little bit larger, and further away from bankruptcy; the hungry seller in the lentil sandwich he just bought with the proceeds of his last sale. But in both cases there is some value, be it the elimination of the physical discomfort of hunger or the psychological gratification of being slightly more financially secure, which makes it worthwhile for the seller or buyer to engage in his action.

This emphasis on the commodity and its implimentation by the new owner for some physical or psychological value is the real meaning of the “free-market”, not two parties to a transaction who are only interested in the capital-half of the transaction. Obviously, the buyer is far more interested in the thing or service he is receiving for his money rather than just his money, or he wouldn’t have spent it. Even when one is “forced” to sell or buy, it is always to achieve a desired physical or psychological need, be it bread or selling one thing to pay off the debt on another thing. So “free-market” implies not money, but action, i.e. the action to which the acquired commodity is put.

Now, it seems to us that Mr. Libertarian, Thomas Jefferson, saw this subtle distinction between physical property and the ends to which it is put. Jefferson, in our view, was a Renaissance Man; one of the greatest. In his life’s actions, one can see the intellect of the Renaissance Man constantly at work, whether he was approaching gardening and farming, the construction of Monticello so that the U.S. Mint could put it on the back of the nickel 180 years later, playing the violin, collecting and reading books, arguing for the Abolition of Capital Punishment in Virginia, or putting forth the most lucid case ever for the Natural Law philosophy of Libertarianism in his masterpieces, the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.

In earlier documents the phrase “Man is endowed with certain inalienable Rights, amongst which are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” had read “Life, Liberty, and Property”. But we believe Jefferson had the amazing insight to make the Libertarian leap from mere “property” to the much larger cause or aim to which it is put, that is “the pursuit of happiness”. This insight directly correlates to Ludwig von Mises subjective valuation principle which is one of the major breakthroughs in economics of the Austrian School — that the value of anything is its subjective value to the owner or purchaser, and that value can never be predicted. No wonder all the other schools of economics could never ever figure out how to measure the value of an object; it cannot be done except subjectively. It can only be measured it terms of its psychological gratification and value to the property owner.

Now, Professor Rothbard in his essay breaks Capitalism down into two breeds: “state Capitalism” and “free-market Capitalism”. State capitalism is what we have in America and the West: the government and associated industries looting wealth from individual Capitalists, a form of Mussolini’s Fascism. “Free-market Capitalism” would be — well, no one really knows exactly what it would be like since it has never really existed except in remote peasant and jungle communities that are probably unknown to modern history. Free-market Capitalism’s days as a world economic system are ahead of it, in the future, and not in the past which has never known it.

Whether we should use the rather longwinded terms “free-market Capitalism” and “free-market Capitalist” every time we want to refer to Capitalism or the Free-Market, or whether we should comply with the Marxists by using a term they coined which, as we have pointed out, has prejudicial connotations, or lastly whether we should always use the term “free-marketeer” instead  of “Capitalist”, is a hard decision which each Libertarian must make for himself. The subtle distinctions are probably beyond the comprehension (or interest) of most Socialists.

Hooooooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwww! — Silverwolf