Do you remember in 2008 when the press colluded with their leaders in the Democratic Party to present leftwing politics as a lovefest?
Issues played a back seat to images.
The media was so slick that even the seriously flawed candidate John Edwards appeared a beacon of reason and hope.
America replaced the Democratic majority in Congress with a Democratic supermajority without even a slightest idea of what the supermajority would do.
Many of my friends thought Obama would usher in a new age of reason and social justice with a legislature constrained by hardcore financial acumen and Blue Dog sensibilities.
The Republican primary is the opposite.
The media blows up every minor conflict while beating drums of fear, doom and gloom.
Sadly, ideas still take a back seat to the conflicts. The only really well developed idea to appear in the campaign was Cain's 999 Plan (which wasn't a very good plan).
I like that Ron Paul has been consistent in his defense of the Constitution, but his campaign has failed to give the public any idea about how we will transition from our corrupt centralized government back to a Constitutionally limited one.
I am not pounding the Ron Paul drum because, without a clearly defined path, Dr. Paul will not succeed in the goal of restoring the Constitution. I fear that the Paulistas have underestimated the anti-freedom reaction that will ensue if Paul won.
The people I met at Occupy Wall Street were so overcome with hatred that I actually fear violence if we tried directly restoring the Constitution by reducing the central authority.
I look in dismay at the field of candidates and fear that none of them are positioned to restore the Constitution.
But as I think about the American experiment, I realize that the Founders of the United States really did not intend the president to be as powerful as the president is today.
The Founders of the United States rejected the monarchy. The did not want the presidency to be the source of ideas. They wanted the people, the states and legislatures to be the source of ideas.
In my opinion, the ideal president would be someone who would administer the government while the people were the source of the creative ideas. The thing to avoid is a president with an organization that actively stifles debate.
I really fear the Republican Establishment behind Mitt Romney. Were Romney president, the Republican establishment would bear down and effectly silence and destroy the voices of freedom within the party ... as had happened under George Bush.
As the candidates bash at each other in Iowa, I hope the American people abandon the fantasy that the presidency is the answer.
In the American Experiment, the people, not the government, should be the source of the ideas.
The one and only way for America to restore our freedom is for the members of the freedom movement to break out its shell and start actively discussing real solutions for the afflictions of the day.
A Libertarian who looks toward the presidency to solve our problems is a contradiction in terms. Liberty loving Americans need to find the answers within themselves and not the with the government.
The Iowa caucus has simply re-inforced my opinion that there are no candidates on this planet who I want to have the power currently concentrated in the presidency.
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Republicans Sell Out the Tea Party
Dick Morris really doesn't like Ron Paul. What is interesting is that Mr. Morris frames Ron Paul as a leftwing radical. The mainstream media frames Dr. Paul as an extreme rightwing radical (The terms "left" and "right" are meaningless).
IMHO: Dr. Paul's positions are closer to the US Founders and the original intent of the American Experiment than any candidate in recent history.
Remember in the days before the passing of ObamaCare when Fox News and the Republican Establishment were encouranging the TeaParty and free market rhetoric?
Now that it is king-making time in the Republican Party, the powers that be have turned full forces against the voices of freedom.
The Democrats play the same game. They launched forth with that bizarre Occupy Wall Street Movement in an off season. They will throw OWS throw it under the bus during the election.
The Dick Morris video shows conclusively that the Republican Party IS NOT a party for freedom. They encourage freedom rhetoric when they are out of power and turn against freedom when they are in power. The modern right is as dialectical and Hegelian as the left.
Mitt Romney will not overturn ObamaCare. At best we will see the corrupt health care exchanges moved from Federal control to State control.
The Tea Party was wrong to put its faith in the Republican Party, for the Republican Party will always sell out freedom when it gets a whiff of power.
Monday, December 26, 2011
Mixed Use Communities
There is a new fad in the development world called "Mixed Use." A mixed use community is developed by a single politically connected developer. The development generally includes office space, shops, condos and apartments.
Cookiecutter mixed-use communities are popping up in towns across the nation.
The big developers popping these communities out of the mold spew forth with reams of progressive dribble about how their new planned society will be so much superior than the failed free market in which residential and commercial space was artificially divided.
The dribble makes me want to scream.
The reason that we have a big separation between residential and commercial space was zoning.
Zoning is not done by the free market. Zoning is a contrivance of anti-market forces.
If you look at the development in pioneer days, it was all mixed use. There were stores generously sprinkled among the houses. It was common for houses to transition from shacks to single family houses to duplexes.
Many stores had living quarters above the store proper.
Zoning was a creation of progressives. The progressives forced an artificial seperation upon our communities.
Salt Lake County is a great example of zoning gone horribly wrong. The zoning boards in Salt Lake made it virtually impossible for people to transition older homes into duplexes or multi-unit apartments. Likewise, it was next to impossible for developments to build high density complexes in the city. The result was that developers bought up farms in unincorporated areas; thus creating a dysfunctional community where low income families in high density housing were isolated from the community and the services they needed.
Progressives like DeeDee Corradini and Rocky Anderson are the ones who created this dysfunctional city where tens of thousands of people are left languishing in food deserts with inadequate access to services.
May the progressives rot.
And what is the progressive solution to the dysfunctional world created by progressives? The progressives now want to create massives planned complexes where the entire community is engineered and owned by a single developer.
The new progressive mixed-communities look pretty in contrast to the overzoned cities of our progressive past ... but they are pits of stagnation. As the pretty little mixed use facilities are own3d by politically connected developers, this brave new planned community will simply stamp out creativity and self expression. A true free market, in contrast, is would a mixed use community that evolves as the local market changes.
A society with no ownership is not a real community. Such a society is really just a guilded concentration camp.
(The food deserts we see are a result of zoning, not the market. If people had the freedom to switch houses to stores, then someone would start selling food to meet local demand).
Cookiecutter mixed-use communities are popping up in towns across the nation.
The big developers popping these communities out of the mold spew forth with reams of progressive dribble about how their new planned society will be so much superior than the failed free market in which residential and commercial space was artificially divided.
The dribble makes me want to scream.
The reason that we have a big separation between residential and commercial space was zoning.
Zoning is not done by the free market. Zoning is a contrivance of anti-market forces.
If you look at the development in pioneer days, it was all mixed use. There were stores generously sprinkled among the houses. It was common for houses to transition from shacks to single family houses to duplexes.
Many stores had living quarters above the store proper.
Zoning was a creation of progressives. The progressives forced an artificial seperation upon our communities.
Salt Lake County is a great example of zoning gone horribly wrong. The zoning boards in Salt Lake made it virtually impossible for people to transition older homes into duplexes or multi-unit apartments. Likewise, it was next to impossible for developments to build high density complexes in the city. The result was that developers bought up farms in unincorporated areas; thus creating a dysfunctional community where low income families in high density housing were isolated from the community and the services they needed.
Progressives like DeeDee Corradini and Rocky Anderson are the ones who created this dysfunctional city where tens of thousands of people are left languishing in food deserts with inadequate access to services.
May the progressives rot.
And what is the progressive solution to the dysfunctional world created by progressives? The progressives now want to create massives planned complexes where the entire community is engineered and owned by a single developer.
The new progressive mixed-communities look pretty in contrast to the overzoned cities of our progressive past ... but they are pits of stagnation. As the pretty little mixed use facilities are own3d by politically connected developers, this brave new planned community will simply stamp out creativity and self expression. A true free market, in contrast, is would a mixed use community that evolves as the local market changes.
A society with no ownership is not a real community. Such a society is really just a guilded concentration camp.
(The food deserts we see are a result of zoning, not the market. If people had the freedom to switch houses to stores, then someone would start selling food to meet local demand).
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Technocrat v. Organization Man
Every presidential election seems to come down to a choice between the bad and the worse.
Both Gingrich and Romney are big government, big business progressives.
When a Libertarian soul is given a choice between progressives, it a matter of choosing the candidate that will do the least harm to our freedom.
Yes, Gingrich has a vision of a corrupt technocracy lording over health care. If Gingrich were president. However, if Gingrich were president, it would be possible to directly attack the technocratic vision.
It is, after all, up to the Congress and states to repeal ObamaCare.
If Gingrich were president, America would launch into an open debate about technocracy v. health freedom.
Like Obama, Romney is an organization man. His goal will be to transfer control of the Health Exchanges from Democratic control to Republican control.
If Romney wins, the Republican Establishment (Fox News Included) will stifle debate about healfh freedom
With both the Republican and Democrat working against freedom, there will be no chance to restore freedom.
The Republican Establishment of Utah slammed an iron boot on the discussion of health freedom to pass its corrupt health exchanges. If Romney wins, both Republicans and Democratics will be united in slamming their boots down and preventing open debate about health freedom.
I am choosing Gingrich over Romney as I see it as the only way to repeal the Health Care Exchanges.
Both Gingrich and Romney are big government, big business progressives.
When a Libertarian soul is given a choice between progressives, it a matter of choosing the candidate that will do the least harm to our freedom.
Yes, Gingrich has a vision of a corrupt technocracy lording over health care. If Gingrich were president. However, if Gingrich were president, it would be possible to directly attack the technocratic vision.
It is, after all, up to the Congress and states to repeal ObamaCare.
If Gingrich were president, America would launch into an open debate about technocracy v. health freedom.
Like Obama, Romney is an organization man. His goal will be to transfer control of the Health Exchanges from Democratic control to Republican control.
If Romney wins, the Republican Establishment (Fox News Included) will stifle debate about healfh freedom
With both the Republican and Democrat working against freedom, there will be no chance to restore freedom.
The Republican Establishment of Utah slammed an iron boot on the discussion of health freedom to pass its corrupt health exchanges. If Romney wins, both Republicans and Democratics will be united in slamming their boots down and preventing open debate about health freedom.
I am choosing Gingrich over Romney as I see it as the only way to repeal the Health Care Exchanges.
Sunday, December 18, 2011
Center For Health Transformation
I just visited Gingrich's Center for Health Transformation and I suddenly feel like puking.
It is all the same technocratic that is in Obamacare.
Technology evolves on its own. We don't need a top heavy government to impose technological solutions on the American people.
What we need is a system that is built around the individual, then the technology is more likely to evolve in a way that enhances the patients lives.
The primary problem that the health freedom movement faces is that establishment Republicans want a top heavy technocratic solution.
Of course, the one and only way to restore health freedom would be for patriots to start talking about health freedom.
I wish I could find a group interested in health freedom.
All of the Republican Groups I know from the Sutherland Institute to the Center of Health Transformation are dedicated to top down health care.
Ron Paul is pretty much the only voice that health care starts with individual humans. What we need is health care reform that builds from the individual person upwards ... not from the ruling class downward.
It is all the same technocratic that is in Obamacare.
Technology evolves on its own. We don't need a top heavy government to impose technological solutions on the American people.
What we need is a system that is built around the individual, then the technology is more likely to evolve in a way that enhances the patients lives.
The primary problem that the health freedom movement faces is that establishment Republicans want a top heavy technocratic solution.
Of course, the one and only way to restore health freedom would be for patriots to start talking about health freedom.
I wish I could find a group interested in health freedom.
All of the Republican Groups I know from the Sutherland Institute to the Center of Health Transformation are dedicated to top down health care.
Ron Paul is pretty much the only voice that health care starts with individual humans. What we need is health care reform that builds from the individual person upwards ... not from the ruling class downward.
Saturday, December 17, 2011
Making the Medical Savings and Loan Real
What is needed to bring the Medical Savings and Loan into existence?
The first step is to create a non-profit Medical and Loan Association. To do this, you would a group of people (maybe four) to create a board of directors and you need about $1,000 in legal fees.
The association could be created under the umbrella of an existing organization … but needs enough independence so that it could spin off into its own entity.
The first step of the board would be to edit and finalize the primary description of the plan. This could take up a full evening.
The MS&L association would be a coordinating body. The association exists to define the Medical Savings and Loan and to coordinate educational, charitable and business activities related to the concept.
After finalizing the definition, the association would need to coordinate the editing and publishing of a book. This could either involve a person proofreading what I've written or a person who wants to co-author a book by adding their content. We have to get a book out NOW, and I would prefer just the proofreading option.
Self publishing packages range from $500 to $1000.
I've been unwilling to borrow to pay this fee because I fear I wouldn't recap the investment on an unedited book. If I had an editor and a group to help advance the idea, I wouldn't, I would gladly swipe the credit card and pay the fee.
PS: I don't have the money to pay an editor out of pocket, but would be willing to pay an editor a portion of any profits on the book.
Because time is critical, I think I would want to take the path of publishing a short political pamphlet style book followed by a more detailed fact driven book in a year or so.
The second step of the Medical Savings and Loan Association would be to launch an educational effort. This would involve coordinating public speakers to talk about health freedom.
The Medical Savings and Loan is a ready made platform for anyone who wants to play the role of free market pundit during the 2012 election. Something I have no desire to do.
In its first year, the tasks of the Medical Savings and Loan Association are almost all purely educational and political. If the idea takes root, the association will need to transition into more of a professional operation.
In the second phase, The Medical Savings and Loan Association would continue to define the plan and coordinate educational efforts. The MS&L Association would need to coordinate charitable and business activities associated with the plan.
The mantra of the Medical Savings and Loan is "Those who can self-fund their care should do so. Those who cannot should receive assistance."
This second task involves a great deal of actuarial analysis. The members of the association would pour over financial and medical expense data to help the financial advisors determine when their clients need to seek charitable care. The MSLA would need to work with charities to assure they have funds to provide that care.
Since the program has two phases, the association could be set up by anyone, of any background. All it needs is four or five people who can muster up enough money to pay the legal and filing fees to start a non-profit.
If the idea takes hold, it is likely that the first group would get spun off and replaced by professional health care administrators.
I imagine myself being spun out of the picture in the second phase.
My ambition is to expose the insurance-pool model of funding health care as fraudulent and anti-market. I would love to be either the author or co-author of a book on this subject.
I do not believe that the free market is about people living in isolation. Free market business activities, by their nature, are group activities.
If there is no-one in the United States, other than me, willing to discuss health freedom; then all efforts I put into the program are pointless.
I find the idea of writing a book that does not go through any form of peer review abhorrent. Likewise, I am appalled at the idea of trying to promote an idea that only backed up by my personal research.
The correct path is to find a group of people interested in advancing health freedom (ie, restoring America). The group would discuss the issue, the present the subject to the world at large.
The left is going to lampoon the Medical Savings and Loan as a system in which people are forced to stand alone. To avoid this criticism, the program simply must go through peer review and have a group supporting it.
The free market is not about people standing alone. It is a system of exchange that holds the individual in high esteem. The free market gives people control over their body, their mind and their property in order to facilitate exchange within a group.
I have decades worth of work on the issue of health freedom. If a small group of people wanted to spend some time exploring the concept of health freedom in detail, they might be in a position to make a big difference.
But there is absolutely nothing I can do if I am forced to sit here in complete isolation and poverty.
Anyone interested can contact me on Community Color.
The first step is to create a non-profit Medical and Loan Association. To do this, you would a group of people (maybe four) to create a board of directors and you need about $1,000 in legal fees.
The association could be created under the umbrella of an existing organization … but needs enough independence so that it could spin off into its own entity.
The first step of the board would be to edit and finalize the primary description of the plan. This could take up a full evening.
The MS&L association would be a coordinating body. The association exists to define the Medical Savings and Loan and to coordinate educational, charitable and business activities related to the concept.
After finalizing the definition, the association would need to coordinate the editing and publishing of a book. This could either involve a person proofreading what I've written or a person who wants to co-author a book by adding their content. We have to get a book out NOW, and I would prefer just the proofreading option.
Self publishing packages range from $500 to $1000.
I've been unwilling to borrow to pay this fee because I fear I wouldn't recap the investment on an unedited book. If I had an editor and a group to help advance the idea, I wouldn't, I would gladly swipe the credit card and pay the fee.
PS: I don't have the money to pay an editor out of pocket, but would be willing to pay an editor a portion of any profits on the book.
Because time is critical, I think I would want to take the path of publishing a short political pamphlet style book followed by a more detailed fact driven book in a year or so.
The second step of the Medical Savings and Loan Association would be to launch an educational effort. This would involve coordinating public speakers to talk about health freedom.
The Medical Savings and Loan is a ready made platform for anyone who wants to play the role of free market pundit during the 2012 election. Something I have no desire to do.
In its first year, the tasks of the Medical Savings and Loan Association are almost all purely educational and political. If the idea takes root, the association will need to transition into more of a professional operation.
In the second phase, The Medical Savings and Loan Association would continue to define the plan and coordinate educational efforts. The MS&L Association would need to coordinate charitable and business activities associated with the plan.
The mantra of the Medical Savings and Loan is "Those who can self-fund their care should do so. Those who cannot should receive assistance."
This second task involves a great deal of actuarial analysis. The members of the association would pour over financial and medical expense data to help the financial advisors determine when their clients need to seek charitable care. The MSLA would need to work with charities to assure they have funds to provide that care.
Since the program has two phases, the association could be set up by anyone, of any background. All it needs is four or five people who can muster up enough money to pay the legal and filing fees to start a non-profit.
If the idea takes hold, it is likely that the first group would get spun off and replaced by professional health care administrators.
I imagine myself being spun out of the picture in the second phase.
My ambition is to expose the insurance-pool model of funding health care as fraudulent and anti-market. I would love to be either the author or co-author of a book on this subject.
I do not believe that the free market is about people living in isolation. Free market business activities, by their nature, are group activities.
If there is no-one in the United States, other than me, willing to discuss health freedom; then all efforts I put into the program are pointless.
I find the idea of writing a book that does not go through any form of peer review abhorrent. Likewise, I am appalled at the idea of trying to promote an idea that only backed up by my personal research.
The correct path is to find a group of people interested in advancing health freedom (ie, restoring America). The group would discuss the issue, the present the subject to the world at large.
The left is going to lampoon the Medical Savings and Loan as a system in which people are forced to stand alone. To avoid this criticism, the program simply must go through peer review and have a group supporting it.
The free market is not about people standing alone. It is a system of exchange that holds the individual in high esteem. The free market gives people control over their body, their mind and their property in order to facilitate exchange within a group.
I have decades worth of work on the issue of health freedom. If a small group of people wanted to spend some time exploring the concept of health freedom in detail, they might be in a position to make a big difference.
But there is absolutely nothing I can do if I am forced to sit here in complete isolation and poverty.
Anyone interested can contact me on Community Color.
Friday, December 16, 2011
My Take on Candidates
Ron Paul is the only candidate in the field who has a clear vision of where America should be. The problem is that he does not have a plan for getting us from here to there.
You can not free people who've been raised as slaves. The left would hit hard and heavily with loud OWS style diversionary protests, while Paul flounders in conveying the vision of freedom to the people.
Mitt Romney, like Barack Obama, is an organization man. Just as his daddy installed Mitt in influential jobs, I see Mitt installing his cohorts in key political positions ... and we will end up with ObamaCare run by corrupt Republicans instead of ObamaCare run by corrupt Democrats.
A vote for Romney is a vote for the health care exchanges, which the establishment Republicans will force down our gullets while they actively suppress debate.
I had really big hopes for Michele Bachmann, but so far she's come up one "L" short in all the debates.
I fear that Ms. Bachmann has spent too much time attacking Obama and not enough time developing ideas. Ms. Bachmann would probably be a front runner if she came up with bold ideas like Herman Cain did. Instead, all we see are negative attacks.
Much as I dislike Obama's policies, I really hate when people attack the President of the United on a personal level.
Oddly, I am reluctantly falling into the position that the technocrat Newt Gingrich will be the best president.
Oddly, the reason I think Gingrich would do well as a president is that he seems to have the ability to see issues from different sides ... a trait one wants in a president.
Overall, though, I don't see any of the candidates putting America back on the road to freedom.
Of course the only real way to get back on that road would be for patriotic Americans to put the nation back on track.
If there was a strong idea-backed pro-freedom movement in the upcoming years, Gingrich is the one most likely to act on the ideas. The organization man Romney is the least likely to respond to ideas.
So, I am reluctantly putting Gingrich on the top of my Christmas list ... although, deep down in side, the debate left me feeling that the Republicans are coming out with too little, too late. I don't see any of the candidates putting America back onto the track of freedom and prosperity.
Of course, that is not the job of the president. Restoring America is the job of the people. I just hope the Republicans avoid the mistake of nominating a president who will block the path to restoration.
You can not free people who've been raised as slaves. The left would hit hard and heavily with loud OWS style diversionary protests, while Paul flounders in conveying the vision of freedom to the people.
Mitt Romney, like Barack Obama, is an organization man. Just as his daddy installed Mitt in influential jobs, I see Mitt installing his cohorts in key political positions ... and we will end up with ObamaCare run by corrupt Republicans instead of ObamaCare run by corrupt Democrats.
A vote for Romney is a vote for the health care exchanges, which the establishment Republicans will force down our gullets while they actively suppress debate.
I had really big hopes for Michele Bachmann, but so far she's come up one "L" short in all the debates.
I fear that Ms. Bachmann has spent too much time attacking Obama and not enough time developing ideas. Ms. Bachmann would probably be a front runner if she came up with bold ideas like Herman Cain did. Instead, all we see are negative attacks.
Much as I dislike Obama's policies, I really hate when people attack the President of the United on a personal level.
Oddly, I am reluctantly falling into the position that the technocrat Newt Gingrich will be the best president.
Oddly, the reason I think Gingrich would do well as a president is that he seems to have the ability to see issues from different sides ... a trait one wants in a president.
Overall, though, I don't see any of the candidates putting America back on the road to freedom.
Of course the only real way to get back on that road would be for patriotic Americans to put the nation back on track.
If there was a strong idea-backed pro-freedom movement in the upcoming years, Gingrich is the one most likely to act on the ideas. The organization man Romney is the least likely to respond to ideas.
So, I am reluctantly putting Gingrich on the top of my Christmas list ... although, deep down in side, the debate left me feeling that the Republicans are coming out with too little, too late. I don't see any of the candidates putting America back onto the track of freedom and prosperity.
Of course, that is not the job of the president. Restoring America is the job of the people. I just hope the Republicans avoid the mistake of nominating a president who will block the path to restoration.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
End of Internet Shopping Season
Well folks. the end of the Internet shopping season is upon us. If you fail to get your orders in before Friday it is highly unlikely that they will get shipped before Monday.
As a good free marketeer, I took a few stabs at grabbing a piece of the Christmas shopping pie: The page AFountainOfBargains.com has a datafeed with hundreds of thousands of products from top internet stores. You can browse the list or compre prices.
AFoB also lists Daily Deals from select merchants. The site also inclues categorized index of stores in the Community Color Store of the Day program.
My past experience is that December 15th is pretty much the end of the online shopping.
Sadly, this year, I failed to draw traffic into my little online efforts.
Oh well. I now need to figure out what to do next.
I confess. I spent myself into a financial jam trying to drum up interest in the the Medical Savings and Loan project.
I would love to go back to that project. Health freedom is the most important issue of our generation and I have important things to say about the issue.
I've been unable to find anyone to talk with on this important issue.
Anyway, I am in a funk. The Christmas season is ending. I had several hundred thousand visitors to the community color sites, but I failed to get any financial traction, and need to come up with a new plan.
As a good free marketeer, I took a few stabs at grabbing a piece of the Christmas shopping pie: The page AFountainOfBargains.com has a datafeed with hundreds of thousands of products from top internet stores. You can browse the list or compre prices.
AFoB also lists Daily Deals from select merchants. The site also inclues categorized index of stores in the Community Color Store of the Day program.
My past experience is that December 15th is pretty much the end of the online shopping.
Sadly, this year, I failed to draw traffic into my little online efforts.
Oh well. I now need to figure out what to do next.
I confess. I spent myself into a financial jam trying to drum up interest in the the Medical Savings and Loan project.
I would love to go back to that project. Health freedom is the most important issue of our generation and I have important things to say about the issue.
I've been unable to find anyone to talk with on this important issue.
Anyway, I am in a funk. The Christmas season is ending. I had several hundred thousand visitors to the community color sites, but I failed to get any financial traction, and need to come up with a new plan.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Last Online Shopping Days for XMas
Black Friday is not the big day for online shopping. The make it or break it time for ecommerce happens about two weeks before Christmas.
Online shopping is driven by shipping schedules.
If you shop on Friday, there is a good chance the package won't get shipped until Monday ... and a very good chance that the package won't show up before Christmas.
BTW: If you haven't sent out Christmas Cards ... you better get them in the mail before Friday.
Today (12/14) and tomorrow (12/15) are the last two days of the shopping season. Here is a categorized list of the Community Color Stores of the Day.
Online shopping is driven by shipping schedules.
If you shop on Friday, there is a good chance the package won't get shipped until Monday ... and a very good chance that the package won't show up before Christmas.
BTW: If you haven't sent out Christmas Cards ... you better get them in the mail before Friday.
Today (12/14) and tomorrow (12/15) are the last two days of the shopping season. Here is a categorized list of the Community Color Stores of the Day.
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Amazed by Stossel
I was delighted to see part of a show by John Stossel, in which he acknowledged that "capitalism" came from Marx.
Thank God! I never thought this day would come.
Unfortunately, I don't think Stossel realizes the full implication of this little twist of philosophic history.
Marx was not an idealist. He was a dialectician. A dialectician gains power by creating conflict. Dialectics is a game in which a rogue promotes paradox at the foundation of reason and conflict at the surface; then rides the whirlwind of confusion into power.
Marx never describe communism beyond vague images of a paradise. His goal was to create a conflict with a belief that conflict would lead to a new stage of evolution.
Marx wanted to destroy the free market. So he created an unstable, top heavy view of the market which he detailed in Das Kapital.
Conservatives, being the greatest dupes in history, vigorously defend Marx's anti-thesis. This anti-thesis creates an oppressive top-down economy that people want to see destroyed.
By defending Marx's distortion of the free market, Conservatives systematically play into the radicals' hands and set up our nation for failure.
Contrary to the ramblings of modern intellectuals, neither Hegelian dialectics nor Marx's thesis/anti-thesis conflict are the foundation of the American experiment in self rule. The US Founders studied classical logic and applied classical logic to the question of liberty (Classical Liberalism).
By defending Marx's capitalism, conservatives surrender the battle field to the enemies of freedom. By accepting Marx's material dialectics as the foundation of society, conservatives set up America for failure.
In the Stossel show, John Stossel pointed out that Hollywood systematically projects false images on business and lamented that the left took the term "liberal" and turned it upside-down. The modern liberal thinks we will find freedom in slavery.
This happened because conservatives let the enemies of freedom define the underlying structure of the debate.
The path to restoring freedom starts by recognizing that Marx was the father of Capitalism and vigorously questioning the false images projected on the free market.
Marx goal was to set up a conflict between the ideals "capitalism" and "communism." We can break this spell by attacking capitalism as creation of the enemies of freedom and engaging in a discussion of capitalism and the free market.
So, I was delighted to hear that Stossel finally recognized that "modern capitalism" was a contrivance of Karl Marx who sought to destroy the Free Market.
Maybe, someday, Stossel will take the next step and realize that the defining conflict of our age is not between capitalism and communism but a conflict between the free market and capitalism (a false image projected on the market by the enemies of freedom).
An even better scenario would involve conservatives realizing that the problem is not "liberalism" but the perversion of liberalism.
The classical liberalism of the founders applied classical logic to the question of liberty. Modern liberals apply Hegelian dialectics to question of liberty and think slavery is freedom. It is a perversion of liberalism.
The Founders of the United States were liberals. They rose to defend liberty in face of the tyranny of monarchy. You can't get more liberal than that. The conservatives of 1776 were the ones defending big government in collusion with big business to the cost of the middle class.
To restore freedom we have to expose the intellectual dishonesty used by the enemies of freedom.
Thank God! I never thought this day would come.
Unfortunately, I don't think Stossel realizes the full implication of this little twist of philosophic history.
Marx was not an idealist. He was a dialectician. A dialectician gains power by creating conflict. Dialectics is a game in which a rogue promotes paradox at the foundation of reason and conflict at the surface; then rides the whirlwind of confusion into power.
Marx never describe communism beyond vague images of a paradise. His goal was to create a conflict with a belief that conflict would lead to a new stage of evolution.
Marx wanted to destroy the free market. So he created an unstable, top heavy view of the market which he detailed in Das Kapital.
Conservatives, being the greatest dupes in history, vigorously defend Marx's anti-thesis. This anti-thesis creates an oppressive top-down economy that people want to see destroyed.
By defending Marx's distortion of the free market, Conservatives systematically play into the radicals' hands and set up our nation for failure.
Contrary to the ramblings of modern intellectuals, neither Hegelian dialectics nor Marx's thesis/anti-thesis conflict are the foundation of the American experiment in self rule. The US Founders studied classical logic and applied classical logic to the question of liberty (Classical Liberalism).
By defending Marx's capitalism, conservatives surrender the battle field to the enemies of freedom. By accepting Marx's material dialectics as the foundation of society, conservatives set up America for failure.
In the Stossel show, John Stossel pointed out that Hollywood systematically projects false images on business and lamented that the left took the term "liberal" and turned it upside-down. The modern liberal thinks we will find freedom in slavery.
This happened because conservatives let the enemies of freedom define the underlying structure of the debate.
The path to restoring freedom starts by recognizing that Marx was the father of Capitalism and vigorously questioning the false images projected on the free market.
Marx goal was to set up a conflict between the ideals "capitalism" and "communism." We can break this spell by attacking capitalism as creation of the enemies of freedom and engaging in a discussion of capitalism and the free market.
So, I was delighted to hear that Stossel finally recognized that "modern capitalism" was a contrivance of Karl Marx who sought to destroy the Free Market.
Maybe, someday, Stossel will take the next step and realize that the defining conflict of our age is not between capitalism and communism but a conflict between the free market and capitalism (a false image projected on the market by the enemies of freedom).
An even better scenario would involve conservatives realizing that the problem is not "liberalism" but the perversion of liberalism.
The classical liberalism of the founders applied classical logic to the question of liberty. Modern liberals apply Hegelian dialectics to question of liberty and think slavery is freedom. It is a perversion of liberalism.
The Founders of the United States were liberals. They rose to defend liberty in face of the tyranny of monarchy. You can't get more liberal than that. The conservatives of 1776 were the ones defending big government in collusion with big business to the cost of the middle class.
To restore freedom we have to expose the intellectual dishonesty used by the enemies of freedom.
Saturday, December 10, 2011
Kicking One's Neighbors Down
Contrary to what we learn in school, the free market is not a system in which people try to get to the top by kicking one's neighbors down.
A true free market is a distributed network. People living in a distributed economic system will not feel the need to kick down neighbors.
In such a society, people are more likely to reach out a hand to help a neighbor that to kick out a boot to hurt a neighbor.
It is in a top-down structured social hierarchy of feudalism and socialism that people start feeling the need to kick down one's neighbors in the grub for the limited number of top seated social position.
The American pioneer experience was one in which people were more willing to lend out a hand on a personal level.
The modern dialectical method (Hegel, Marx, Popper, Chomsky, Soros) teaches that one must dominate or perish. When we accept this modern dialectics, we become a base and ugly people.
In the free market envisioned by classical liberals and US Founders, free people had property rights. They would seeking to make the most of their property would do so by finding ways to help others.
Modern capitalism was created by Marx in his tome "Das Kapital." Das Kapital turned the equations upside down. Marx's "Das Kapital" changed the discussion from one about free people owning property rights to one about a ruling elite leveraging the capital system to dominate markets.
Look around at America today!!!! We are clearly not in a free market. There are very few people who are directly engaged in the process of developing their personal property. There is a ruling elite in the financial system.
Above all, America is not longer a strong distributed social network in our communities.
Most American workers are pigeon-holed in jobs with a vertical top-down political network.
I look at the business world in Salt Lake. All I see are mean, nasty people who spend their days kicking each other down.
BTW, I've been working on the Community Color sites for almost ten years. In ten years, there has not been a single person from Utah who's asked what I was doing or why I was doing it.
I've tried going to meetings to bring up the project, and people would get extremely hostile.
I am a mathematician, the goal of this project was to encourage people to think of the local web as a distributed social network. I realized that if people did not actively engage in the Internet as a distributed network that it would devolve into a top down structured network with only a few dominate players at the top and the rest languishing.
A true free market is a distributed network. People living in a distributed economic system will not feel the need to kick down neighbors.
In such a society, people are more likely to reach out a hand to help a neighbor that to kick out a boot to hurt a neighbor.
It is in a top-down structured social hierarchy of feudalism and socialism that people start feeling the need to kick down one's neighbors in the grub for the limited number of top seated social position.
The American pioneer experience was one in which people were more willing to lend out a hand on a personal level.
The modern dialectical method (Hegel, Marx, Popper, Chomsky, Soros) teaches that one must dominate or perish. When we accept this modern dialectics, we become a base and ugly people.
In the free market envisioned by classical liberals and US Founders, free people had property rights. They would seeking to make the most of their property would do so by finding ways to help others.
Modern capitalism was created by Marx in his tome "Das Kapital." Das Kapital turned the equations upside down. Marx's "Das Kapital" changed the discussion from one about free people owning property rights to one about a ruling elite leveraging the capital system to dominate markets.
Look around at America today!!!! We are clearly not in a free market. There are very few people who are directly engaged in the process of developing their personal property. There is a ruling elite in the financial system.
Above all, America is not longer a strong distributed social network in our communities.
Most American workers are pigeon-holed in jobs with a vertical top-down political network.
I look at the business world in Salt Lake. All I see are mean, nasty people who spend their days kicking each other down.
BTW, I've been working on the Community Color sites for almost ten years. In ten years, there has not been a single person from Utah who's asked what I was doing or why I was doing it.
I've tried going to meetings to bring up the project, and people would get extremely hostile.
I am a mathematician, the goal of this project was to encourage people to think of the local web as a distributed social network. I realized that if people did not actively engage in the Internet as a distributed network that it would devolve into a top down structured network with only a few dominate players at the top and the rest languishing.
Monday, December 05, 2011
The Free Market is NOT a Meritocracy
One of the candidates (it may have been Romney) talked about how the United States was a meritocracy, and that the left was wrong for wanting a more just society.
The free market is not a meritocracy.
The foundation of the free market is freedom … not merit.
A meritocracy is a top-down system where the collective dangles out prizes and the best and grubbing for the prize gets the prize.
A free market starts from the bottom up with the free mind of the individual.
In classical liberal thought, this free mind is a gift from God and each free mind has inalienable rights such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Each person has property rights. The most important property right is the right to our body and the fruit of our labor.
We have these rights from God … even though we did nothing to merit them.
Classical liberals sought to avoid paradox. One's freedom stops at one's neighbor's nose. A free person cannot have the freedom to take the freedom of another.
The most important things that exist on this planet (from a human perspective) are the human mind, the human body and our individual labor. We each got these wonderful gifts from God without any special merit.
Because we are free there will be some disparity in outcomes; however, since each of us start with the same fundamental things (our mind and body). The outcomes should not be quite as pronounced as they are in present day America.
This is where conservatives keep getting the debate wrong.
In a true free society, there should not be as pronounced a separation in classes as we see in modern America. This disparity shows that we are not a free society, and that we need to examine the underlying structure of our society which is causing this unnatural disparity.
Unfortunately, instead of thinking, reactionary conservatives tend to run at the mouth and defend the artificial concentration of wealth before examining the causes of the artificial concentration of wealth.
A free society is a bottom up proposition that starts with the individual mind.
A meritocracy is a top-down system in which there is a small number of outsized rewards controlled by a ruling elite.
In a meritocracy, everyone is pitted against each other in a grub for the small number of rewards. Those that are most brutal in the grubbing take all and the rest languish.
Feudalism was a meritocracy. There was a small number of rewards in a top-down structure and everyone battled eachother brutally for those rewards.
A meritocracy is the exact opposite of a free market. In a free market our free minds create the rewards. That means there is an unlimited number of rewards.
The bottom-up ideals of classical liberals were so powerful because they led to a more just society.
As we stray from these ideals of the US founders, America loses its exceptionalism and we fall back into the pattern of a class society.
Conservatives have it completely backwards. Freedom is the path to greater social justice. By straying from freedom, America is devolving into a class society.
The free market is not a meritocracy.
The foundation of the free market is freedom … not merit.
A meritocracy is a top-down system where the collective dangles out prizes and the best and grubbing for the prize gets the prize.
A free market starts from the bottom up with the free mind of the individual.
In classical liberal thought, this free mind is a gift from God and each free mind has inalienable rights such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Each person has property rights. The most important property right is the right to our body and the fruit of our labor.
We have these rights from God … even though we did nothing to merit them.
Classical liberals sought to avoid paradox. One's freedom stops at one's neighbor's nose. A free person cannot have the freedom to take the freedom of another.
The most important things that exist on this planet (from a human perspective) are the human mind, the human body and our individual labor. We each got these wonderful gifts from God without any special merit.
Because we are free there will be some disparity in outcomes; however, since each of us start with the same fundamental things (our mind and body). The outcomes should not be quite as pronounced as they are in present day America.
This is where conservatives keep getting the debate wrong.
In a true free society, there should not be as pronounced a separation in classes as we see in modern America. This disparity shows that we are not a free society, and that we need to examine the underlying structure of our society which is causing this unnatural disparity.
Unfortunately, instead of thinking, reactionary conservatives tend to run at the mouth and defend the artificial concentration of wealth before examining the causes of the artificial concentration of wealth.
A free society is a bottom up proposition that starts with the individual mind.
A meritocracy is a top-down system in which there is a small number of outsized rewards controlled by a ruling elite.
In a meritocracy, everyone is pitted against each other in a grub for the small number of rewards. Those that are most brutal in the grubbing take all and the rest languish.
Feudalism was a meritocracy. There was a small number of rewards in a top-down structure and everyone battled eachother brutally for those rewards.
A meritocracy is the exact opposite of a free market. In a free market our free minds create the rewards. That means there is an unlimited number of rewards.
The bottom-up ideals of classical liberals were so powerful because they led to a more just society.
As we stray from these ideals of the US founders, America loses its exceptionalism and we fall back into the pattern of a class society.
Conservatives have it completely backwards. Freedom is the path to greater social justice. By straying from freedom, America is devolving into a class society.
Sunday, December 04, 2011
Congress Passes the Laws
IMHO, presidential candidates spend far too much time talking about the laws they want to see passed.
It really upsets me when candidates start talking about their opinions as if their opinions will be the dictates of the land.
A presidential candidate who really follows the Constitution should understand that it is Congress that passes the laws.
It is okay for a candidate to argue a position; However, I really wish these Republican candidates would step back and emphasize that Congress writes the laws. It is the executive's job to implement the laws passed by Congress.
The president should argue positions, but restoring Constitutional balance means restoring the Congress as the source of laws.
It really upsets me when candidates start talking about their opinions as if their opinions will be the dictates of the land.
A presidential candidate who really follows the Constitution should understand that it is Congress that passes the laws.
It is okay for a candidate to argue a position; However, I really wish these Republican candidates would step back and emphasize that Congress writes the laws. It is the executive's job to implement the laws passed by Congress.
The president should argue positions, but restoring Constitutional balance means restoring the Congress as the source of laws.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
The Life Cycle of Bad Ideas
The world is awash in bad ideas; so I thought I would write a short piece on the life cycle of bad ideas.
All bad ideas start out as progressive. The originator of the bad idea is self-deluded and thinks that he found a magical shortcut to progress.
Bad ideas tend to concentrate benefits on a few and the costs on the many. The marketers for bad ideas will present them to these beneficiaries as liberating, and will exhort nay-sayers to open-mindedness.
So, at birth, bad ideas are liberal.
As people begin to realize that a bad idea is not liberating, it will become the protectorate of the centrist who is anxious to support anything that is compromising.
After a bad idea has been tried and disproved, the bad idea becomes the fodder of the Conservative who will defend the bad idea because that's just the way it is.
So, if you look at any given bad idea, you are likely to find that it has been supported at some time or other by progressives, liberals, centrists and conservatives.
Sadly, in our partisan age, anyone who calls out a bad idea as a bad idea is likely to get attacked from all sides.
All bad ideas start out as progressive. The originator of the bad idea is self-deluded and thinks that he found a magical shortcut to progress.
Bad ideas tend to concentrate benefits on a few and the costs on the many. The marketers for bad ideas will present them to these beneficiaries as liberating, and will exhort nay-sayers to open-mindedness.
So, at birth, bad ideas are liberal.
As people begin to realize that a bad idea is not liberating, it will become the protectorate of the centrist who is anxious to support anything that is compromising.
After a bad idea has been tried and disproved, the bad idea becomes the fodder of the Conservative who will defend the bad idea because that's just the way it is.
So, if you look at any given bad idea, you are likely to find that it has been supported at some time or other by progressives, liberals, centrists and conservatives.
Sadly, in our partisan age, anyone who calls out a bad idea as a bad idea is likely to get attacked from all sides.
Sunday, November 27, 2011
Headphones
My sites went down Thanksgiving. The sites came back online on Black Friday, but traffic did not recover. I had one sale on Saturday from Vanns. I love Missoula, one actually feels a sense of community in Montana towns.
I had $10 in my Paypal account, so I decided to buy a pair of in-ear buds from 2xl.com. I wish there were more programs like 2xl. This is a division of Skullcandy that simply focusses on selling one item: headphones. They have three basic styles of earphones (over ear, ear hangers and in-ear), a good price point and free shipping. (shipping calculated into the price).
I prefer this type of focussed shop to big stores that try to be everything to every person.
I had $10 in my Paypal account, so I decided to buy a pair of in-ear buds from 2xl.com. I wish there were more programs like 2xl. This is a division of Skullcandy that simply focusses on selling one item: headphones. They have three basic styles of earphones (over ear, ear hangers and in-ear), a good price point and free shipping. (shipping calculated into the price).
I prefer this type of focussed shop to big stores that try to be everything to every person.
Friday, November 25, 2011
Reverse Incentives
Looks like Black Friday will not put me in the black. The sites went down yesterday and didn't come back until early this morning.
Due to web outages, the income from my web site has been decimated.
What is interesting is that I find I find myself working harder because of the drop in income than I would if my income had increased.
If times were better, I would be relaxing in the good times.
Labor seems to work in the opposite direction from capital. When markets are week, people remove their capital from the market, but they start working harder and harder.
Clearly, labor does not have the same regulatory mechanism as capital.
A balanced economy neither overemphasizes labor nor capital.
Well, because my income is down, I need to end this post on a commercial note; So, on a commercial note: here is a deal sheet for Salt Lake.
Due to web outages, the income from my web site has been decimated.
What is interesting is that I find I find myself working harder because of the drop in income than I would if my income had increased.
If times were better, I would be relaxing in the good times.
Labor seems to work in the opposite direction from capital. When markets are week, people remove their capital from the market, but they start working harder and harder.
Clearly, labor does not have the same regulatory mechanism as capital.
A balanced economy neither overemphasizes labor nor capital.
Well, because my income is down, I need to end this post on a commercial note; So, on a commercial note: here is a deal sheet for Salt Lake.
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Political Occupation of Wall Street
The WSJ published a great opinion piece by Sarah Palin on the occupation of Wall Street.
The article notes that members of Congress and political leaders routinely make great fortunes on Wall Street as they routinely receive sweetheart deals on financial productions and trade on insider information.
Our current economic paradigm is one in which people on the outside of the political structure are pitted against eachother in self-destructive competition while those on the inside divide up the spoils.
The vast unearned, risk-free fortunes made by the political class show that there is substantial collusion between the big government and big business.
Sadly, we can't legislate this collusion away. The political class is adept at turning any regulation to its favor. The greater the regulatory burden, the greater the need for political collusion in business.
There is a way out. Businesses on the outside of the good-old-boy network could start working together to provide alternatives to the services provided by government. If we chose, we could reject the poison the political class feeds us.
The article notes that members of Congress and political leaders routinely make great fortunes on Wall Street as they routinely receive sweetheart deals on financial productions and trade on insider information.
Our current economic paradigm is one in which people on the outside of the political structure are pitted against eachother in self-destructive competition while those on the inside divide up the spoils.
The vast unearned, risk-free fortunes made by the political class show that there is substantial collusion between the big government and big business.
Sadly, we can't legislate this collusion away. The political class is adept at turning any regulation to its favor. The greater the regulatory burden, the greater the need for political collusion in business.
There is a way out. Businesses on the outside of the good-old-boy network could start working together to provide alternatives to the services provided by government. If we chose, we could reject the poison the political class feeds us.
Monday, November 21, 2011
The Market and The Mind
The market is a product of the mind.
The human mind is pretty much the only thing on this planet that honors our money.
The greatest determining factor in the health the markets is the collection of ideas that people have about the market.
Since the market is a collection of ideas we have about the markets, then what we think about the market matters.
If a large number of people think that the market is a place where one must dominate or perish, then the market turns into an ugly place where one must dominate or perish (with more people perishing than dominating).
If one thinks that the market is a predatory environment where base creatures are set against eachother in brutal competition for survival, then the market becomes just such a place.
When business leaders are trained in the art of war and see the market as a battlefield, then the market becomes an ugly battlefield with people holed up in encampments doing business war with eachother.
People have known that the market is a product of the mind for ages. The left has this fantasy of an engineered society with philosopher kings dictating good behavior.
The left uses its hegemony in the schools and media to perpetuate every negative idea that people have about the market ... knowing that when enough people believe the market is such, that the market will become such.
Conservatives believe that they can defend freedom by reacting, but one can't win the war of ideas by rolling up into a reactionary ball. The reactionary surrenders the whole definition of culture to the enemies of freedom.
The reactionary is as great a threat to liberty as the wild-eyed radical.
America has been caught in the tug of war between radicals and reactions for the last century. As a result, there has been a systematic loss of freedom.
Conservatives have been consistently ineffective at defending freedom. Reactionary politics does not advance freedom.
To restore freedom, we actually have to have a pro-freedom movement. This is next to impossible because conservatives keep throwing themselves in the way.
A profreedom movement would start with the realization that the market is the creation of the human mind. The market is a product of our collective thoughts about the market.
The battle against freedom has been waging since antiquity. To restore our freedom, people must challenge every single idea that they have about the market.
I've asked fundamental questions and came up with surprising answers. I asked if competition was the foundation of the free market. I realized that it wasn't. Freedom is the foundation of the free market.
I asked if business was war. Of course, it is not. When people apply the ideas of Machiavelli and Sun Tsu to the market place, they diminish the market place.
Those who are engaged in "business war" are enemies of freedom.
Stock traders and hedgefunds who see themselves as predators to cull the herd are enemies of the free market.
We can't outlaw modes of thinking, but we can challenge them. So, the best path to restoring the free market is to directly challenge all of the negative ideas about the free market being taught by the enemies of the free market.
The human mind is pretty much the only thing on this planet that honors our money.
The greatest determining factor in the health the markets is the collection of ideas that people have about the market.
Since the market is a collection of ideas we have about the markets, then what we think about the market matters.
If a large number of people think that the market is a place where one must dominate or perish, then the market turns into an ugly place where one must dominate or perish (with more people perishing than dominating).
If one thinks that the market is a predatory environment where base creatures are set against eachother in brutal competition for survival, then the market becomes just such a place.
When business leaders are trained in the art of war and see the market as a battlefield, then the market becomes an ugly battlefield with people holed up in encampments doing business war with eachother.
People have known that the market is a product of the mind for ages. The left has this fantasy of an engineered society with philosopher kings dictating good behavior.
The left uses its hegemony in the schools and media to perpetuate every negative idea that people have about the market ... knowing that when enough people believe the market is such, that the market will become such.
Conservatives believe that they can defend freedom by reacting, but one can't win the war of ideas by rolling up into a reactionary ball. The reactionary surrenders the whole definition of culture to the enemies of freedom.
The reactionary is as great a threat to liberty as the wild-eyed radical.
America has been caught in the tug of war between radicals and reactions for the last century. As a result, there has been a systematic loss of freedom.
Conservatives have been consistently ineffective at defending freedom. Reactionary politics does not advance freedom.
To restore freedom, we actually have to have a pro-freedom movement. This is next to impossible because conservatives keep throwing themselves in the way.
A profreedom movement would start with the realization that the market is the creation of the human mind. The market is a product of our collective thoughts about the market.
The battle against freedom has been waging since antiquity. To restore our freedom, people must challenge every single idea that they have about the market.
I've asked fundamental questions and came up with surprising answers. I asked if competition was the foundation of the free market. I realized that it wasn't. Freedom is the foundation of the free market.
I asked if business was war. Of course, it is not. When people apply the ideas of Machiavelli and Sun Tsu to the market place, they diminish the market place.
Those who are engaged in "business war" are enemies of freedom.
Stock traders and hedgefunds who see themselves as predators to cull the herd are enemies of the free market.
We can't outlaw modes of thinking, but we can challenge them. So, the best path to restoring the free market is to directly challenge all of the negative ideas about the free market being taught by the enemies of the free market.
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Metaphorically Speaking
In the last post I pointed out that Adam Smith wrote the Wealth of Nations for the ruling elite. There is nothing wrong with that. The goal of the Wealth of Nations was to show 18th century English aristocrats that freeing up the market would help them in their never ending war with France.
There is nothing wrong with writing for an audience.
The enemies of freedom use the fact that Smith wrote for the ruling elite to falsely frame the free market as if were a tool only for the ruling elite.
If I wrote an article about using a tooth brush to clean grout, would this article invalidate the use of toothbrushes for cleaning teeth?
They are wrong. An unfettered market does more to pull people out of poverty than any socialist scheme.
The enemies of freedom use other forms of misdirection to attack the free market.
Every single time a defender of liberty uses a metaphor, the left traunces on the metaphor, then pretends that the metaphor is the foundation of the free market.
For example, a shopper might say "I am hunting for a pair of shoes." The enemies of freedom will then use that metaphor to claim that the free market is nothing but a predatory environment.
Business leaders have an unfortunate tendency to use war analogies. The enemies of freedom play war analogies to the hilt.
In school I attended a string of classes that played on the the notion that business was a battlefield and that one must dominate or perish.
There are so many books about applying the art of war in business that it turns my stomach.
The free market is not about business war. Wars are a political issue. Wars are about destroying enemies. The free market is about people maximizing the return of their personal assets.
Unfortunately, when business leaders are taught these negative analogies and develop the crazy notion that business actually is war, then they will engage in anti-market behanvior.
Like all systems, the free market is subject to the reflexive paradox. When a market allows anti-market activities, the market ends up negating itself.
Classical thinkers sought to avoid paradox. Classical liberals realized that the key to a free society is to avoid the paradox. One cannot have the freedom to deny others freedom.
Business leader taught the false notion that business is war are apt to engage in activities that deny others the ability to engage in the market.
Overemphasizing the role of competition does the same thing. A businessman consumed with the idea of beating the competition is apt to engage in anti-market activities to destroy their competition. Activity designed to prevent others from participating in the market is anti-market.
The predatory metaphor is innocent until one starts setting up other humans as prey. People hunting for the best running shoes leads to better shoes. When business predators set up their fellow man for a fall, they are directly engaged in anti-market activity.
There is nothing wrong with the use of metaphors as metaphors. The game of pretending that metaphors are the foundational premises of the market leads people to engage in anti-market activities.
When schools teach that business is a war in which one must dominate or perish, the students will take that poison from the classroom into the market and are likely to engage in activities that undermine the people around them.
The free market is not war. The free market is a system in which free people seek to maximize the benefit they receive from their assets. The free market is one in which each free person is seeking to make the best use of their minds, their time, their business connections and any other resources they possess.
This notion that freedom is a war is a myth being perpetuated by the enemies of freedom.
Don't people get it? Karl Marx, the father of Capitalism, wrote Das Kapital in an effort to project false images on the free market. Marx knew that the free market was susceptible to the reflexive paradox. So in Das Kapital (the foundational document of modern Capitalism) he emphasized every metaphor that would lead people to engage in anti market activity.
It is next to impossible to regulate out anti-market activities. Regulation, by nature, is an anti-market activity. Regulatory regimes try to use anti-market activities to control anti-market activities. The end result is, more often than not, even more anti-market activities.
There is no free market in American. Most people have been reduced to wage labor slaving under business warlords playing anti-market games to avoid the competition that would exist in a real free market.
Those wishing to restore the free market have a difficult task.
I believe the first step to restoring the free market is to realize that our schools are controlled by enemies of the free market and that they seek to destroy the free market by projecting false images on the free market.
The champions of the free market need to directly challenge the misuse of metaphors and other false images projected on the free market.
The free market is not a war. It is not a state of total competition. It is not a predatory environment. The free market is one in which free individuals control their own resources. A free person does not have the freedom to take the freedom of others. A free person is encouraged to find ways to make the most of his or her given resources.
Don't you get it? The primary reason that Americans are losing their freedom at every turn is that the enemies of freedom have captured our cultural institutions and project false images onto the market.
To restore freedom we must reject the false images projected on the free market.
There is nothing wrong with writing for an audience.
The enemies of freedom use the fact that Smith wrote for the ruling elite to falsely frame the free market as if were a tool only for the ruling elite.
If I wrote an article about using a tooth brush to clean grout, would this article invalidate the use of toothbrushes for cleaning teeth?
They are wrong. An unfettered market does more to pull people out of poverty than any socialist scheme.
The enemies of freedom use other forms of misdirection to attack the free market.
Every single time a defender of liberty uses a metaphor, the left traunces on the metaphor, then pretends that the metaphor is the foundation of the free market.
For example, a shopper might say "I am hunting for a pair of shoes." The enemies of freedom will then use that metaphor to claim that the free market is nothing but a predatory environment.
Business leaders have an unfortunate tendency to use war analogies. The enemies of freedom play war analogies to the hilt.
In school I attended a string of classes that played on the the notion that business was a battlefield and that one must dominate or perish.
There are so many books about applying the art of war in business that it turns my stomach.
The free market is not about business war. Wars are a political issue. Wars are about destroying enemies. The free market is about people maximizing the return of their personal assets.
Unfortunately, when business leaders are taught these negative analogies and develop the crazy notion that business actually is war, then they will engage in anti-market behanvior.
Like all systems, the free market is subject to the reflexive paradox. When a market allows anti-market activities, the market ends up negating itself.
Classical thinkers sought to avoid paradox. Classical liberals realized that the key to a free society is to avoid the paradox. One cannot have the freedom to deny others freedom.
Business leader taught the false notion that business is war are apt to engage in activities that deny others the ability to engage in the market.
Overemphasizing the role of competition does the same thing. A businessman consumed with the idea of beating the competition is apt to engage in anti-market activities to destroy their competition. Activity designed to prevent others from participating in the market is anti-market.
The predatory metaphor is innocent until one starts setting up other humans as prey. People hunting for the best running shoes leads to better shoes. When business predators set up their fellow man for a fall, they are directly engaged in anti-market activity.
There is nothing wrong with the use of metaphors as metaphors. The game of pretending that metaphors are the foundational premises of the market leads people to engage in anti-market activities.
When schools teach that business is a war in which one must dominate or perish, the students will take that poison from the classroom into the market and are likely to engage in activities that undermine the people around them.
The free market is not war. The free market is a system in which free people seek to maximize the benefit they receive from their assets. The free market is one in which each free person is seeking to make the best use of their minds, their time, their business connections and any other resources they possess.
This notion that freedom is a war is a myth being perpetuated by the enemies of freedom.
Don't people get it? Karl Marx, the father of Capitalism, wrote Das Kapital in an effort to project false images on the free market. Marx knew that the free market was susceptible to the reflexive paradox. So in Das Kapital (the foundational document of modern Capitalism) he emphasized every metaphor that would lead people to engage in anti market activity.
It is next to impossible to regulate out anti-market activities. Regulation, by nature, is an anti-market activity. Regulatory regimes try to use anti-market activities to control anti-market activities. The end result is, more often than not, even more anti-market activities.
There is no free market in American. Most people have been reduced to wage labor slaving under business warlords playing anti-market games to avoid the competition that would exist in a real free market.
Those wishing to restore the free market have a difficult task.
I believe the first step to restoring the free market is to realize that our schools are controlled by enemies of the free market and that they seek to destroy the free market by projecting false images on the free market.
The champions of the free market need to directly challenge the misuse of metaphors and other false images projected on the free market.
The free market is not a war. It is not a state of total competition. It is not a predatory environment. The free market is one in which free individuals control their own resources. A free person does not have the freedom to take the freedom of others. A free person is encouraged to find ways to make the most of his or her given resources.
Don't you get it? The primary reason that Americans are losing their freedom at every turn is that the enemies of freedom have captured our cultural institutions and project false images onto the market.
To restore freedom we must reject the false images projected on the free market.
Tuesday, November 08, 2011
Adam Smith Wrote for the Ruling Elite
Competition is not the foundation of the free market. The foundation of the free market is freedom.
In a free society, people seek ways to make the best use of their time and resources in a community environment. As each person strives to make the most of their personal resources people end up competing in their ability to cooperate.
In the "Wealth of Nations," played up the role of competition in the market and diverted attention from the role of cooperation. For example he used complex terms like the division of labor to explain how people cooperated.
Adam Smith wrote "The Wealth of Nations" for the ruling elite of England in 1770. As the title of the book suggests, Smith argued that the king should allow free market reforms because it would help England in its never ending war with France.
Smith wrote for the English ruling elite.
The ruling elite love to see the people pitted in competition against each other. Rulers have used contrived competitions since antiquity.
In ancient Rome, they were actually throwing people into pits (coliseums) to engage in death battles. The ruling elite love competition.
Conversely, the elite fear commoners cooperating amongst themselves because such cooperation makes the rulers superfluous.
Smith knew his audience. He played up the role competition plays in markets and played down the role of cooperation.
Smith used bizarre terms like "The Division of Labor" to describe cooperation and really drove the point that merchants were always competing for market share.
Please note. The business that is best at helping customers achieve their goals wins market share.
The beauty of the free market is that people compete in their ability to cooperate with others.
In contrast, the derived competitions of the ancient regime tended to be base and destructive.
Sadly, the enemies of the free market have been able to take Adam Smith and use the fact that he wrote for the ruling elite to claim that the free market is simply about building a new elite.
This tact is absurd. Imagine if a physicist wrote a childrens book on Quantum Mechanics. Would this mean that Quantum Mechanics is just for children?
This is the tact taken by Karl Marx in "Das Kapital" (the foundation of modern capitalism).
Marx holds that since Smith wrote "The Wealth of Nations" for the ruling elite, that capitalism exists solely for the benefit of the ruling elite.
Marx takes the fact that Smith overemphasized competition to frame the free market as a dystopia in businesses were pitted against each other in a death struggle in which one must dominate or perish.
When one builds a market in which dominating the competition becomes the primary focus of existence, then the market becomes a base, nasty system littlered with carcasses.
The philosophy is self-fullfilling. When business leaders are taught that they must dominate or perish, then they are apt to engage in anti-market activities.
Treating competition as if it were the foundation of the free market leads to people to engage in activities that undermine the market.
People who are taught the Marxian view of economics tend to engage in anti-market activities that undermine themselves and the people around them.
This is the fault of the Marxian view of economics. It is not the fault of freedom.
Competition is neither the foundation or, nor is it unique to the free market.
Freedom is the foundation of the free market.
When people are free to choose, they choose to form mutually beneficial associations. As time and resources are limited, free people begin to engage in the paradoxical activity of competing in their ability to cooperate.
Cooperation plays a bigger role in the market than competition.
What I learned in school about markets and competition was wrong. By teaching the Marxian view of the markets, our progressive schools are engineering the destruction of our freedom.
In a free society, people seek ways to make the best use of their time and resources in a community environment. As each person strives to make the most of their personal resources people end up competing in their ability to cooperate.
In the "Wealth of Nations," played up the role of competition in the market and diverted attention from the role of cooperation. For example he used complex terms like the division of labor to explain how people cooperated.
Adam Smith wrote "The Wealth of Nations" for the ruling elite of England in 1770. As the title of the book suggests, Smith argued that the king should allow free market reforms because it would help England in its never ending war with France.
Smith wrote for the English ruling elite.
The ruling elite love to see the people pitted in competition against each other. Rulers have used contrived competitions since antiquity.
In ancient Rome, they were actually throwing people into pits (coliseums) to engage in death battles. The ruling elite love competition.
Conversely, the elite fear commoners cooperating amongst themselves because such cooperation makes the rulers superfluous.
Smith knew his audience. He played up the role competition plays in markets and played down the role of cooperation.
Smith used bizarre terms like "The Division of Labor" to describe cooperation and really drove the point that merchants were always competing for market share.
Please note. The business that is best at helping customers achieve their goals wins market share.
The beauty of the free market is that people compete in their ability to cooperate with others.
In contrast, the derived competitions of the ancient regime tended to be base and destructive.
Sadly, the enemies of the free market have been able to take Adam Smith and use the fact that he wrote for the ruling elite to claim that the free market is simply about building a new elite.
This tact is absurd. Imagine if a physicist wrote a childrens book on Quantum Mechanics. Would this mean that Quantum Mechanics is just for children?
This is the tact taken by Karl Marx in "Das Kapital" (the foundation of modern capitalism).
Marx holds that since Smith wrote "The Wealth of Nations" for the ruling elite, that capitalism exists solely for the benefit of the ruling elite.
Marx takes the fact that Smith overemphasized competition to frame the free market as a dystopia in businesses were pitted against each other in a death struggle in which one must dominate or perish.
When one builds a market in which dominating the competition becomes the primary focus of existence, then the market becomes a base, nasty system littlered with carcasses.
The philosophy is self-fullfilling. When business leaders are taught that they must dominate or perish, then they are apt to engage in anti-market activities.
Treating competition as if it were the foundation of the free market leads to people to engage in activities that undermine the market.
People who are taught the Marxian view of economics tend to engage in anti-market activities that undermine themselves and the people around them.
This is the fault of the Marxian view of economics. It is not the fault of freedom.
Competition is neither the foundation or, nor is it unique to the free market.
Freedom is the foundation of the free market.
When people are free to choose, they choose to form mutually beneficial associations. As time and resources are limited, free people begin to engage in the paradoxical activity of competing in their ability to cooperate.
Cooperation plays a bigger role in the market than competition.
What I learned in school about markets and competition was wrong. By teaching the Marxian view of the markets, our progressive schools are engineering the destruction of our freedom.
Sunday, November 06, 2011
Restoring the Free Market
The small business community is falling apart because too many businesses and workers have fallen into an isolationist mindset.
Our progressive education taught us that competition is the foundation of the free market and that businesses in a free society are supposed to be in some sort of dysfunctional death struggle.
Progressives are the enemies of freedom. Progressives intentionally mislead the people in their unending grub for centralized power.
Competition is not the foundation of the free market. Freedom is the foundation of the free market.
To save the free market, concerned business leaders need to find ways to pull the large number of disenfranchised Americans out of their isolated holes and into active participation in the market.
Competition is not the foundation of the free market. The freedom to develop one's own personal relations is the foundation of the market.
In a fully actualized free market, people would end up with diverse relations in their career. They would know more than just the people in their company.
Freedom, not competition, is the foundation of the free market. As people want to make the most of their resources and relations, people end up competing in the ability to cooperate.
My last post contrasted centralized and distributed networks. A true free market would look more like a distributed network.
In a centralized network, you have the people above you and the people below you. One can transform a centralized network into a distributed network by creating more lateral links.
Social networking and link building can play a role in forming more lateral links. To re-establish the free market, we need to do more. We need to find ways to help people engage in business outside this top down structure being imposed on our society.
It is absurd to look to politics to save the free market. The one and only way to restore the free market is for business leaders to find ways to pull the disenfranchised out of the hole dug by progressives into a vibrant free market.
Our progressive education taught us that competition is the foundation of the free market and that businesses in a free society are supposed to be in some sort of dysfunctional death struggle.
Progressives are the enemies of freedom. Progressives intentionally mislead the people in their unending grub for centralized power.
Competition is not the foundation of the free market. Freedom is the foundation of the free market.
To save the free market, concerned business leaders need to find ways to pull the large number of disenfranchised Americans out of their isolated holes and into active participation in the market.
Competition is not the foundation of the free market. The freedom to develop one's own personal relations is the foundation of the market.
In a fully actualized free market, people would end up with diverse relations in their career. They would know more than just the people in their company.
Freedom, not competition, is the foundation of the free market. As people want to make the most of their resources and relations, people end up competing in the ability to cooperate.
I've spent several thousand hours developing directories in the Community Color Brand to emphasize the need to establish more lateral links between businesses.
Businesses are unwilling to link to other businesses, the result is that the web is now being dominated by only a few companies.
Currently, we are stuck in the dystopia of the Organization man where most worker's professional network includes little more than subordinate relations to the bosses above and stressful relations with those below in a hierarchical organization chart.Businesses are unwilling to link to other businesses, the result is that the web is now being dominated by only a few companies.
My last post contrasted centralized and distributed networks. A true free market would look more like a distributed network.
In a centralized network, you have the people above you and the people below you. One can transform a centralized network into a distributed network by creating more lateral links.
Social networking and link building can play a role in forming more lateral links. To re-establish the free market, we need to do more. We need to find ways to help people engage in business outside this top down structure being imposed on our society.
It is absurd to look to politics to save the free market. The one and only way to restore the free market is for business leaders to find ways to pull the disenfranchised out of the hole dug by progressives into a vibrant free market.
Friday, November 04, 2011
Cooperation in a Distributed Network
I found the following image on wikipedia a few months back. I thought it was from an article on Distributionism. I had a computer crash and lost my database of references.
The graph shows a centralized, decentralized and distributed network.
In the centralized network, you attempt to have one centralized force in control of the whole system. This is the direction of socialism.
The decentralized network has multiple centers of authority. Bureaucracies often use a hybrid system with a hierarchical system of authorities distributed through the system. in feudalism there was a chain of being with the emperor at top followed by kings and lords leading down to the serfs.
In looking at this model, I realized that a free market is likely to take the form of the distributed model. With people free to choose their associations, one will end up with a very complex, but robust distributed network.
I've been writing about the paradoxes associated cooperation and competition.in the free market. In a free market, people are free to choose their associations and tend to make associations that better their lot. People compete on their ability to cooperate with others.
This is opposite of what I learned about the free market in school which painted the free market as a system of base competition driven by greed.
It dawned on me that our academic institutions and financial institutions have been trying to impose a dececentralized model onto what should be a fully distributed network.
For example, I discovered that wikipedia defined collusion as "cooperation among competitors."
But in a free society, people should be able to work with whoever they wanted to work with.
Doctors are apt to hang out with other doctors. Web designers like to hang with other web designers and so on.
In a truly free society, people would have mutually beneficial relations with others in the same market. I define true collusion as any group activity designed to limit the access that others have to the market. Price fixing limits the ability to negotiate prices, etc.
Labeling all cooperation among people in the same industry as collusion cuts the necessary mutually beneficial links needed in a truly free market.
It think the graph that contrasts centralized and distributed markets starts an interesting conversation on the type of structures that one should see in a free market.
In my opinion, a truly free market should end up looking like the distributed model. What we have today is a decentralized hierarchy.
This tells me that there is something going wrong with our markets today.
The graph shows a centralized, decentralized and distributed network.
In the centralized network, you attempt to have one centralized force in control of the whole system. This is the direction of socialism.
The decentralized network has multiple centers of authority. Bureaucracies often use a hybrid system with a hierarchical system of authorities distributed through the system. in feudalism there was a chain of being with the emperor at top followed by kings and lords leading down to the serfs.
In looking at this model, I realized that a free market is likely to take the form of the distributed model. With people free to choose their associations, one will end up with a very complex, but robust distributed network.
I've been writing about the paradoxes associated cooperation and competition.in the free market. In a free market, people are free to choose their associations and tend to make associations that better their lot. People compete on their ability to cooperate with others.
This is opposite of what I learned about the free market in school which painted the free market as a system of base competition driven by greed.
It dawned on me that our academic institutions and financial institutions have been trying to impose a dececentralized model onto what should be a fully distributed network.
For example, I discovered that wikipedia defined collusion as "cooperation among competitors."
But in a free society, people should be able to work with whoever they wanted to work with.
Doctors are apt to hang out with other doctors. Web designers like to hang with other web designers and so on.
In a truly free society, people would have mutually beneficial relations with others in the same market. I define true collusion as any group activity designed to limit the access that others have to the market. Price fixing limits the ability to negotiate prices, etc.
Labeling all cooperation among people in the same industry as collusion cuts the necessary mutually beneficial links needed in a truly free market.
It think the graph that contrasts centralized and distributed markets starts an interesting conversation on the type of structures that one should see in a free market.
In my opinion, a truly free market should end up looking like the distributed model. What we have today is a decentralized hierarchy.
This tells me that there is something going wrong with our markets today.
Wednesday, November 02, 2011
Collusion
The last two posts were about cooperation. Cooperation exists in all socio-economic systems. What matters is the way these two forces mix together.
The foundation of the free market is freedom. Free people are free to choose their relations. The result is that people free people end up competing on their ability to cooperate.
Not all cooperation is good. When Party A cooperates with Party B to exclude Party C from the market, they are engaged in an anti-market activity.
The word for this typle of activity is "collusion."
Please note. The problem here is not cooperation, but that they are engaged in antimarket activity. If Party A took it upon himself to exclude Party C from the market, then the activity is still negative. When people cooperate in a promarket fashion they improve the competitive climate.
Classical thinkers sought to avoid paradox. Classical liberals realized that to preserve a free market one needs to actively prevent anti-market activities. The key to collusion is that the parties engaged in anti-market activity.
In contrast, let's look at the Wikipedia's definition of "collusion" [drawn 11/2/11]
I wish to point out that this definition is both absurd and is anti-free market.
It is absurd to say that two people in the same industry cannot associate with each other because they are "competitors." A capenter is likely to have other carpenters as friends, and these friendships are likely to be mutually beneficial.
This definition is also anti-market.
Remember the key to the free market is freedom of association. Carpenters are free to associate with other carpenters. Programmers are free to geek out with other programmers.
When people of the same profession associate, they engage in mutually beneficial activities such as discussing best practices and industry standards.
Labeling cooperation among competitors as collusion is absurd. In a free society, people are free to have relations with other people ... even people in the same industry.
True collusion only occurs when groups engage in activities that activities that deny the rights of others. Professionals discussing best practices, standards and billing practices is not collusion. Price fixing is collusion because it denies consumers the right to negotiate price. Any activity to deny people market access is collusion.
The free market is a cooperative structure in which people are free to form their own associations.
Proponents of the free market must find ways to counter the false images projected onto freedom.
The foundation of the free market is freedom. Free people are free to choose their relations. The result is that people free people end up competing on their ability to cooperate.
Not all cooperation is good. When Party A cooperates with Party B to exclude Party C from the market, they are engaged in an anti-market activity.
The word for this typle of activity is "collusion."
Please note. The problem here is not cooperation, but that they are engaged in antimarket activity. If Party A took it upon himself to exclude Party C from the market, then the activity is still negative. When people cooperate in a promarket fashion they improve the competitive climate.
Classical thinkers sought to avoid paradox. Classical liberals realized that to preserve a free market one needs to actively prevent anti-market activities. The key to collusion is that the parties engaged in anti-market activity.
In contrast, let's look at the Wikipedia's definition of "collusion" [drawn 11/2/11]
"In the study of economics and market competition, collusion takes place within an industry when rival companies cooperate for their mutual benefit."This definition labels any cooperation between competitors as collusion.
I wish to point out that this definition is both absurd and is anti-free market.
It is absurd to say that two people in the same industry cannot associate with each other because they are "competitors." A capenter is likely to have other carpenters as friends, and these friendships are likely to be mutually beneficial.
This definition is also anti-market.
Remember the key to the free market is freedom of association. Carpenters are free to associate with other carpenters. Programmers are free to geek out with other programmers.
When people of the same profession associate, they engage in mutually beneficial activities such as discussing best practices and industry standards.
Labeling cooperation among competitors as collusion is absurd. In a free society, people are free to have relations with other people ... even people in the same industry.
True collusion only occurs when groups engage in activities that activities that deny the rights of others. Professionals discussing best practices, standards and billing practices is not collusion. Price fixing is collusion because it denies consumers the right to negotiate price. Any activity to deny people market access is collusion.
The free market is a cooperative structure in which people are free to form their own associations.
Proponents of the free market must find ways to counter the false images projected onto freedom.
Twitter Game
My twitter account flat-lined last month. Several hundred people blocked me for criticizing Occupy Wall Street.
Anyway, I ran JustUnfollow to clean up the account.
I noticed that my follow count is 9358. That is 642 short of the 10K milestone that separates the whales from the krill. If I follow 2000 people and a third follow back, I would hit the milestone.
So, today is 11/2/11 or 11022011. I updated my profile with a new link and will start a mass follow session. This takes me awhile because I actually read the first page of posts for each person I follow.
Because of my Community Color project, I will try to concentrate on people in Arizona, Colorado and Utah.
Because of the Medical Savings and Loan Project, I like to follow fellow free-marketeers.
Well, let the games begin. Reading 2000 pages of tweets will take some time, and it likely to blow up in my face with more blocks than new friends ... but the media is the message and on twitter one tweets.
Anyway, I ran JustUnfollow to clean up the account.
I noticed that my follow count is 9358. That is 642 short of the 10K milestone that separates the whales from the krill. If I follow 2000 people and a third follow back, I would hit the milestone.
So, today is 11/2/11 or 11022011. I updated my profile with a new link and will start a mass follow session. This takes me awhile because I actually read the first page of posts for each person I follow.
Because of my Community Color project, I will try to concentrate on people in Arizona, Colorado and Utah.
Because of the Medical Savings and Loan Project, I like to follow fellow free-marketeers.
Well, let the games begin. Reading 2000 pages of tweets will take some time, and it likely to blow up in my face with more blocks than new friends ... but the media is the message and on twitter one tweets.
Monday, October 31, 2011
Competition and Cooperation in Society
In school I was taught that capitalism was a society of greedy people set against each other in cut throat competition, while socialism was a system of enlightened people who engaged in beneficial cooperation.
Okay kids! Which is a better society: Competitive capitalism or cooperative socialism?
It took me a long time to realize that my teachers were projecting false images on the free market.
The idea that one society is based on cooperation and another on competition is absurd because there are elements of competition and cooperation in all socio-economic systems. Societies that try to force cooperation through political might end up creating a culture where people viciously compete for political power.
Feudalism is a top-down society in which people competed for the benefit of their lord. In return the ruling elite would grant entitlements. As there is a limit to what a lord can entitle, competition for entitlements became fierce. Feudalism was a brutal society.
Democratic-Socialism is a top-down society in which the ruling elite competes for the favor of people by lavishing supporters with entitlements. This equation has proven as brutal as feudalism.
There is intense competition for political power in top-down social structures like feudalism and socialism. As government gets larger, the political class spends more and more resources to control the government.
Forced cooperation is better called "coercion." Socialism and Feudalism both try to coerce people into cooperation and end up with a diminished society.
Regardless, competition and cooperation are not the primary issue. Forms of cooperation and coercion exist in all socio-economic systems.
The free market is a system of voluntary cooperation. Free individuals choose who they work with.
Every mutually beneficial trade in the free market is an act of cooperation. Trades involve people transacting goods and services to help each other achieve their different ends. Competition comes into play because free markets provide people with multiple choices. The competition is not the primary focus.
People have less say-so in who they compete against.
The idea that socialism is based on cooperation and capitalism is based on competition is bogus. All socio-economic systems have a mix of cooperation and competition.
What matters is the way that these ideas fit together. In a free market, businesses compete on their ability to cooperate with their customers. This leads to a better results than a system that attempts to impose cooperation that forces people to compete on base politics as we grub for limited entitlements.
Okay kids! Which is a better society: Competitive capitalism or cooperative socialism?
It took me a long time to realize that my teachers were projecting false images on the free market.
The idea that one society is based on cooperation and another on competition is absurd because there are elements of competition and cooperation in all socio-economic systems. Societies that try to force cooperation through political might end up creating a culture where people viciously compete for political power.
Feudalism is a top-down society in which people competed for the benefit of their lord. In return the ruling elite would grant entitlements. As there is a limit to what a lord can entitle, competition for entitlements became fierce. Feudalism was a brutal society.
Democratic-Socialism is a top-down society in which the ruling elite competes for the favor of people by lavishing supporters with entitlements. This equation has proven as brutal as feudalism.
There is intense competition for political power in top-down social structures like feudalism and socialism. As government gets larger, the political class spends more and more resources to control the government.
Forced cooperation is better called "coercion." Socialism and Feudalism both try to coerce people into cooperation and end up with a diminished society.
Regardless, competition and cooperation are not the primary issue. Forms of cooperation and coercion exist in all socio-economic systems.
Advertisement
Businesses need a steady stream of office supplies. When they buy from an office supply store they are effectively forming an alliance with that store in providing a good or service.
The foundation of the free market is freedom. Free individuals choose their own associations. I might choose to buy from store A instead of store B. I might sell labor to company C instead of company D. Businesses need a steady stream of office supplies. When they buy from an office supply store they are effectively forming an alliance with that store in providing a good or service.
The free market is a system of voluntary cooperation. Free individuals choose who they work with.
Every mutually beneficial trade in the free market is an act of cooperation. Trades involve people transacting goods and services to help each other achieve their different ends. Competition comes into play because free markets provide people with multiple choices. The competition is not the primary focus.
People have less say-so in who they compete against.
The idea that socialism is based on cooperation and capitalism is based on competition is bogus. All socio-economic systems have a mix of cooperation and competition.
What matters is the way that these ideas fit together. In a free market, businesses compete on their ability to cooperate with their customers. This leads to a better results than a system that attempts to impose cooperation that forces people to compete on base politics as we grub for limited entitlements.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Cooperation in the Free Market
The enemies of the free market distort the role that competition plays in the free market.
Competition is not a foundational element of the free market.
The free market is about freedom.
In the free market, people own their resources and have the ability to use their resources as they see fit.
Intelligent people seek to make the most of their resources. Such people will study the market and engage in business with others who help them achieve their goal.
As a free person, I seek to engage with businesses and people who will help me make the most of my limited resources. I avoid those who waste my resources.
Free people actively seek cooperation. They engage in relations that help them achieve their ends and avoid those that do not.
In the free market people have the ability to choose their relations. This creates a system where people compete in their ability to cooperate.
When I slam my silver quarter down in exchange for a plate of grub, I am not competing with the restaurant. In this transaction I am engaged in cooperation with the restaurant in the task of getting food. The restaurant might be in competition with the two bit diner on the corner. The physical transaction is an act of cooperation.
Competition is not foundational to the free market. Sane people do not run out into the street to find a competitor. People actively seek mutually beneficial relations.
Cooperation is the key to the free market. Since we all want to make the most of our resources, free people compete to see who is best at cooperating with others.
When looking at a free market, one is apt to see a great deal of competition. I would even go as far as to say that lack of competition is a sign that a market is not free. The lack of competition indicates that an artificial force compels people to do business with a single vender.
Vibrant competition is a hallmark of the free market, but it is not a foundational principle.
The foundational principle of the free market is freedom. Free people choose their associations. Free people actively seek to cooperate with others. Since free people seek to make the most of their resources, they seek to associate with others who are best at cooperating.
The competition arises from people actively seeking mutually beneficially relations. Because people compete in their ability to cooperate they become more effective.
It is fair to say that the lack of competition is a sign that a market is not free. However, it is the freedom to choose our associations and our ability to cooperate that makes the free market a success.
The enemies of freedom de-emphasize the role of cooperation and over-emphasize the role of competition in the free market. I even had teachers who defined the free market as a socio-economic system where people compete with eachother and socialism is one in which people cooperate.
Defenders of freedom would be wise to counter this attack.
A sane person does not walk out in the street seeking competitors. Sane people actively seek those who can help them achieve their personal goals.
In a free society people compete in their ability to cooperate. By competing in our ability to cooperate, free people expand their capabilities and accomplish more than top-down structures that seek to force people into cooperative structures.
Competition is not a foundational element of the free market.
The free market is about freedom.
In the free market, people own their resources and have the ability to use their resources as they see fit.
Intelligent people seek to make the most of their resources. Such people will study the market and engage in business with others who help them achieve their goal.
As a free person, I seek to engage with businesses and people who will help me make the most of my limited resources. I avoid those who waste my resources.
Free people actively seek cooperation. They engage in relations that help them achieve their ends and avoid those that do not.
In the free market people have the ability to choose their relations. This creates a system where people compete in their ability to cooperate.
When I slam my silver quarter down in exchange for a plate of grub, I am not competing with the restaurant. In this transaction I am engaged in cooperation with the restaurant in the task of getting food. The restaurant might be in competition with the two bit diner on the corner. The physical transaction is an act of cooperation.
Competition is not foundational to the free market. Sane people do not run out into the street to find a competitor. People actively seek mutually beneficial relations.
Cooperation is the key to the free market. Since we all want to make the most of our resources, free people compete to see who is best at cooperating with others.
When looking at a free market, one is apt to see a great deal of competition. I would even go as far as to say that lack of competition is a sign that a market is not free. The lack of competition indicates that an artificial force compels people to do business with a single vender.
Vibrant competition is a hallmark of the free market, but it is not a foundational principle.
The foundational principle of the free market is freedom. Free people choose their associations. Free people actively seek to cooperate with others. Since free people seek to make the most of their resources, they seek to associate with others who are best at cooperating.
The competition arises from people actively seeking mutually beneficially relations. Because people compete in their ability to cooperate they become more effective.
It is fair to say that the lack of competition is a sign that a market is not free. However, it is the freedom to choose our associations and our ability to cooperate that makes the free market a success.
The enemies of freedom de-emphasize the role of cooperation and over-emphasize the role of competition in the free market. I even had teachers who defined the free market as a socio-economic system where people compete with eachother and socialism is one in which people cooperate.
Defenders of freedom would be wise to counter this attack.
A sane person does not walk out in the street seeking competitors. Sane people actively seek those who can help them achieve their personal goals.
In a free society people compete in their ability to cooperate. By competing in our ability to cooperate, free people expand their capabilities and accomplish more than top-down structures that seek to force people into cooperative structures.
Monday, October 24, 2011
Middle of the Night
It is the middle of the night and, once again, I am unable to sleep.
I've had this same problem every night for the last three years.
I have a wealth of knowledge on free market health care reform, and there is not a single person on this planet who will talk to me.
I live in Utah, but am not LDS.
The LDS control the Republican Party and Conservative Think Tanks and lock out all non-LDS.
The Left welcomes non-LDS into the fold, but do not like to hear ideas ... especially those of the free market type.
Anyway, I had a fiendish thought before going to bed. I thought about crashing OccupySLC and giving my presentation there.
My presentation is actually very clever. I lead in with an attack of the insurance industry. I use solid mathematics to show that insurance concentrates wealth. My presenation also highlights the role that insurance played in the financial collapse.
The left loves to hate insurance; however, my attack is not an attack on the insurance company. It is an attack on group funding of individual consumption.
I would let loose with criticisms of big banks, big insurance, hedge funds and Wall Street ... but when the polemics where through, I would show that the solution is not socialism but the restoration of the free market.
The solution is to replace group-insurance with self-funded health care.
OccuplySLC would love the attacks on big insurance and Wall Street. Some in the audience my like that my solution is to restore health freedom.
The community organizers at the event would be aghast.
Anyway, once again I cannot sleep. If ever I found a group interested in learning about free market health care reform, life would be grand.
Sadly, I live in the most oppressive state in the nation (Utah).
Fortunately, the United States invaded Utah and the Constitution gives me the freedom to dream outloud.
I've had this same problem every night for the last three years.
I have a wealth of knowledge on free market health care reform, and there is not a single person on this planet who will talk to me.
I live in Utah, but am not LDS.
The LDS control the Republican Party and Conservative Think Tanks and lock out all non-LDS.
The Left welcomes non-LDS into the fold, but do not like to hear ideas ... especially those of the free market type.
Anyway, I had a fiendish thought before going to bed. I thought about crashing OccupySLC and giving my presentation there.
My presentation is actually very clever. I lead in with an attack of the insurance industry. I use solid mathematics to show that insurance concentrates wealth. My presenation also highlights the role that insurance played in the financial collapse.
The left loves to hate insurance; however, my attack is not an attack on the insurance company. It is an attack on group funding of individual consumption.
I would let loose with criticisms of big banks, big insurance, hedge funds and Wall Street ... but when the polemics where through, I would show that the solution is not socialism but the restoration of the free market.
The solution is to replace group-insurance with self-funded health care.
OccuplySLC would love the attacks on big insurance and Wall Street. Some in the audience my like that my solution is to restore health freedom.
The community organizers at the event would be aghast.
Anyway, once again I cannot sleep. If ever I found a group interested in learning about free market health care reform, life would be grand.
Sadly, I live in the most oppressive state in the nation (Utah).
Fortunately, the United States invaded Utah and the Constitution gives me the freedom to dream outloud.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Getting Over the Fence
The Republican Candidates are making a mistake of over-emphasizing the fence. What matters most at this junction in the immigration debate is internal enforcement of immigration laws.
Visa violations are as problematic as illegal border crossings.
America wants to have an open visa system that accommodates as much world travel as is possible.
When a large number of people violate their visa, the visa system breaks down and it erodes the ability for people to travel abroad and see the world.
The key to winning the immigration debate is to bring it up visa violations in the larger context of world travel.
The number of people who grossly overstay their visa is a small part of the population engaged in world travel. There is a small number of people making complications for the many.
Republicans should emphasize world travel because everyone dreams of seeing the world.
The issue of deportation should be discussed in the context of visas and world travel. A visa is a contract between the traveler and host country. A visa usually has fixed dates and other restrictions. Deportation is the expected response to a person who violates their contract by not returning as they said they would.
Taken out of context, deportation seems like a harsh and inhumane. But, within the context of a visa, it is the correct action. Failure to enforce visas puts a strain on the visa system. This strain impedes the ability of others to travel.
The number of Latinos wishing to engage in world travel outstrips the number seeking to engage in illegal immigration. Debating visa enforcement of world traffic might reduce ill feelings in the Latino community towards Republicans.
One might actually build support for law enforcement by bringing up the ugly topic of human trafficking.
A very large part of the immigration borders on the edge of human trafficking.
There is a massive machine build around illegal immigration in the United States. This machine includes coyotes and unscrupulous businesses who abuse foreign national workers to gain advantage in the market.
The massive machine built around illegal immigration in the United States feeds the problem of human trafficking.
The left has framed the debate to make it appear that immigration is about free individuals moving about completely on their own volition.
But this mass movement is not taken place in isolation. Much of the underground movement in illegal immigration involves people being pushed around and abused in very ugly ways.
This constant yammering about the fence makes conservatives look petty and cruel. They could win friends simply by addressing more compelling issues like the desire for world travel and the scourge of human trafficking.
The massive violation of visas makes world travel more difficult. The correct response to a visa violation is deportation as is written in the contract. The big machine built around illegal immigration has the negative effect of increasing problems with human trafficking.
The answer to both problems is aggressive law enforcement.
America is a nation that holds free movement of people in high esteem. I believe that aggressive enforcement of immigration laws will put our nation into a position that will allow us to develop more liberal immigration and visa laws in the future.
Visa violations are as problematic as illegal border crossings.
America wants to have an open visa system that accommodates as much world travel as is possible.
When a large number of people violate their visa, the visa system breaks down and it erodes the ability for people to travel abroad and see the world.
The key to winning the immigration debate is to bring it up visa violations in the larger context of world travel.
The number of people who grossly overstay their visa is a small part of the population engaged in world travel. There is a small number of people making complications for the many.
Republicans should emphasize world travel because everyone dreams of seeing the world.
The issue of deportation should be discussed in the context of visas and world travel. A visa is a contract between the traveler and host country. A visa usually has fixed dates and other restrictions. Deportation is the expected response to a person who violates their contract by not returning as they said they would.
Taken out of context, deportation seems like a harsh and inhumane. But, within the context of a visa, it is the correct action. Failure to enforce visas puts a strain on the visa system. This strain impedes the ability of others to travel.
The number of Latinos wishing to engage in world travel outstrips the number seeking to engage in illegal immigration. Debating visa enforcement of world traffic might reduce ill feelings in the Latino community towards Republicans.
One might actually build support for law enforcement by bringing up the ugly topic of human trafficking.
A very large part of the immigration borders on the edge of human trafficking.
There is a massive machine build around illegal immigration in the United States. This machine includes coyotes and unscrupulous businesses who abuse foreign national workers to gain advantage in the market.
The massive machine built around illegal immigration in the United States feeds the problem of human trafficking.
The left has framed the debate to make it appear that immigration is about free individuals moving about completely on their own volition.
But this mass movement is not taken place in isolation. Much of the underground movement in illegal immigration involves people being pushed around and abused in very ugly ways.
This constant yammering about the fence makes conservatives look petty and cruel. They could win friends simply by addressing more compelling issues like the desire for world travel and the scourge of human trafficking.
The massive violation of visas makes world travel more difficult. The correct response to a visa violation is deportation as is written in the contract. The big machine built around illegal immigration has the negative effect of increasing problems with human trafficking.
The answer to both problems is aggressive law enforcement.
America is a nation that holds free movement of people in high esteem. I believe that aggressive enforcement of immigration laws will put our nation into a position that will allow us to develop more liberal immigration and visa laws in the future.
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Systematic Theft
There is systematic theft in the American financial world.
Conservatives would be wise to spend more time trying to root it out and stop the theft.
One clue to systematic theft it that the theft often begins with appeals for the greater good.
Often systematic theft comes in the form of regulation. Whenever a regulation artificially increases prices or reduces competition, that regulation has the effect of taking from the many for the benefit of the few.
Our current regulatory system has regulation piled upon regulation. One will often find a regulation regulating the use of regulatory tools. A prime example: Insurance was created to regulate health care expenses. There is a massive regulatory regime built around this regulatory tool.
Another example. short selling was created as a means to regulate stock. There are regulations regulating this regulation method.
If you remove one removes the regulations regulating the regulators, then the regulators will run amok and wreak havoc in the financial community.
Read the regulations that created the derivatives. The derivatives were all justified with a belief that they would regulate stock fluctuations and result in unending prosperity. They had the effect of concentrating wealth.
Attempts to deregulate these regulatory tools resulted in chaos.
To restore prosperity, we need to start rebuilding sound financial institutions from the ground up to replace the captured systems that are destroying the country.
Conservatives would be wise to spend more time trying to root it out and stop the theft.
One clue to systematic theft it that the theft often begins with appeals for the greater good.
Often systematic theft comes in the form of regulation. Whenever a regulation artificially increases prices or reduces competition, that regulation has the effect of taking from the many for the benefit of the few.
Our current regulatory system has regulation piled upon regulation. One will often find a regulation regulating the use of regulatory tools. A prime example: Insurance was created to regulate health care expenses. There is a massive regulatory regime built around this regulatory tool.
Another example. short selling was created as a means to regulate stock. There are regulations regulating this regulation method.
If you remove one removes the regulations regulating the regulators, then the regulators will run amok and wreak havoc in the financial community.
Read the regulations that created the derivatives. The derivatives were all justified with a belief that they would regulate stock fluctuations and result in unending prosperity. They had the effect of concentrating wealth.
Attempts to deregulate these regulatory tools resulted in chaos.
To restore prosperity, we need to start rebuilding sound financial institutions from the ground up to replace the captured systems that are destroying the country.
Property Paradox
A slogan from the Occupy movement shows a perfectly formed example of the reflexive paradox:
"All property is theft."
"Theft" is the denial of property. Implying that theft occurred means the existence of property.
The slogan tosses in the absolute "all." It has been known since antiquity that absolutes set up a reflexive paradox because statement's become paradoxical as soon as one applies it to itself.
If you believe that the rich have stolen from the poor, then the problem is the denial of property rights (theft), not the existence of property rights.
"All property is theft."
"Theft" is the denial of property. Implying that theft occurred means the existence of property.
The slogan tosses in the absolute "all." It has been known since antiquity that absolutes set up a reflexive paradox because statement's become paradoxical as soon as one applies it to itself.
If you believe that the rich have stolen from the poor, then the problem is the denial of property rights (theft), not the existence of property rights.
Saturday, October 15, 2011
Skip this post, it contains a secret, evil plan
Dear Evil Koch Brothers,
Hi, my name is Kevin Delaney. I am interested in free market health care reform and have developed a model called "The Medical Savings and Loan." This is a structured savings program that helps people self-finance their care with savings and loans. The MS&L creates a generous grant program for those who are unable to self-fund their care.
The program is meant as an alternative to insurance.
When talking about this program, I am often accused of being funded by the Evil Koch Brothers.
Truthfully, I have no knowledge of your secret, conspiratorial group … beyond the fact that it is evil.
Anyway, I looked up your online bio and the volumes of criticism of your group on Soros funded web sites.
The bios say you are successful business people and you are hated by all the right groups.
So, I decided that, instead of just being accused of being funded by the Evil Koch Brothers, it would be super fun to actually be funded by the Evil Koch Brothers.
The Medical Savings and Loan itself is a business model. To be more precise it is a model of distributed businesses which provide tools to help people self fund their care.
At the center of the distributed business model is a non-profit association to define the model and interaction of the distributed businesses.
Creating the association and hosting a meeting to start the ball rolling would cost about $15,000.
Since I am already accused of accepting money from your evil group, I thought I should write an open letter requesting the funds.
If you wrote me a check for $15,000, I would hire a lawyer to create a non-profit group and give it the by line "funded by the Koch Brothers."
I notice that a lot of people like to preface your name with the word "evil;" So, I decided that if you wrote me a check for $20,000, I would have the byline read "funded by The Evil Koch Brothers."
The Soros-funded sites dedicated to criticizing the Evil Koch Brothers indicate that you have a fondness for secret meetings.
I am all for secret meetings, but I don't do secret meetings cheap. If you want to do a secret meeting, I would want $25,000 (assuming it costs less than $5K to get to the location of secret meeting).
A secret meeting would be really fun because then the byline of my effort could have the line "created in a secret meeting with the Evil Koch Brothers."
When I go to the Occupy Wall Street meetings, people would go ballistic seeing the words "created in a secret meeting by the Evil Koch Brothers." I can't think of any better way to start a project.
Anyway, I will be sitting loose waiting for the check to arrive in the mail.
Please, don't write the check in invisible ink, and write the check from a real bank account. The bank doesn't like checks written in invisible media from make-believe accounts.
I was accused of getting checks from insurance companies during the ObamaCare debate … but all of those checks were written in invisible ink drawn from make-believe bank accounts that only existed in the accuser's head.
BTW, If you don't like using dollars anymore, I would be happy to accept payment in gold. That'd be like 15 one ounce gold coins.
What better way to start a project than to accept a pile of gold coins slipped under the table during a secret meeting with the Evil Koch Brothers?
Sincerely,
Kevin ....
Okay, so my plan of getting funding is silly. I have a good idea that could go far if ever I received any support. I would be happy to give a presentation for free. I could rent a room and have a public meeting for a couple hundred bucks.
Hi, my name is Kevin Delaney. I am interested in free market health care reform and have developed a model called "The Medical Savings and Loan." This is a structured savings program that helps people self-finance their care with savings and loans. The MS&L creates a generous grant program for those who are unable to self-fund their care.
The program is meant as an alternative to insurance.
When talking about this program, I am often accused of being funded by the Evil Koch Brothers.
Truthfully, I have no knowledge of your secret, conspiratorial group … beyond the fact that it is evil.
Anyway, I looked up your online bio and the volumes of criticism of your group on Soros funded web sites.
The bios say you are successful business people and you are hated by all the right groups.
So, I decided that, instead of just being accused of being funded by the Evil Koch Brothers, it would be super fun to actually be funded by the Evil Koch Brothers.
The Medical Savings and Loan itself is a business model. To be more precise it is a model of distributed businesses which provide tools to help people self fund their care.
At the center of the distributed business model is a non-profit association to define the model and interaction of the distributed businesses.
Creating the association and hosting a meeting to start the ball rolling would cost about $15,000.
Since I am already accused of accepting money from your evil group, I thought I should write an open letter requesting the funds.
If you wrote me a check for $15,000, I would hire a lawyer to create a non-profit group and give it the by line "funded by the Koch Brothers."
I notice that a lot of people like to preface your name with the word "evil;" So, I decided that if you wrote me a check for $20,000, I would have the byline read "funded by The Evil Koch Brothers."
The Soros-funded sites dedicated to criticizing the Evil Koch Brothers indicate that you have a fondness for secret meetings.
I am all for secret meetings, but I don't do secret meetings cheap. If you want to do a secret meeting, I would want $25,000 (assuming it costs less than $5K to get to the location of secret meeting).
A secret meeting would be really fun because then the byline of my effort could have the line "created in a secret meeting with the Evil Koch Brothers."
When I go to the Occupy Wall Street meetings, people would go ballistic seeing the words "created in a secret meeting by the Evil Koch Brothers." I can't think of any better way to start a project.
Anyway, I will be sitting loose waiting for the check to arrive in the mail.
Please, don't write the check in invisible ink, and write the check from a real bank account. The bank doesn't like checks written in invisible media from make-believe accounts.
I was accused of getting checks from insurance companies during the ObamaCare debate … but all of those checks were written in invisible ink drawn from make-believe bank accounts that only existed in the accuser's head.
BTW, If you don't like using dollars anymore, I would be happy to accept payment in gold. That'd be like 15 one ounce gold coins.
What better way to start a project than to accept a pile of gold coins slipped under the table during a secret meeting with the Evil Koch Brothers?
Sincerely,
Kevin ....
Okay, so my plan of getting funding is silly. I have a good idea that could go far if ever I received any support. I would be happy to give a presentation for free. I could rent a room and have a public meeting for a couple hundred bucks.
Sunday, October 09, 2011
Special Interest Groups and Special Elections
IMHO, the vast majority of politicians are crooks, and I want to see them all recalled and thrown out.
Unfortunately, the only groups with the political clout to hold special elections are large special interest groups. I find these even more distasteful than the politicians they own.
This last year we've seen a spat of special elections run by large political groups who did not like a politician's position on an issue. The Republicans who wanted to limit collective bargaining to wages were slated for recall. Russell Pearce who sponsored the unpopular Arizona immigration bill is up for a recall election as well.
In both cases the politicians are being targetted for taking on extremely tough issues.
I love recall elections when they are driven by ethical issues. I am less excited to pound the "throw-the-bums-out" drum when the recall is driven by political issues. As you see, only the most powerful special interest groups have the resources to run an election recall.
The danger I see is that powerful special interest groups would have even more power if they can intimidate their opponents with threats of recall elections. Special interest groups wielding threats of recall elections will make our bad political system even worse.
Much as I dislike incumbant politicians, I am not in favor of the game of holding impeachment hearings or special elections based on political issues.
The best way to get rid of bad politicians are caucuses and primaries.
Unfortunately, the only groups with the political clout to hold special elections are large special interest groups. I find these even more distasteful than the politicians they own.
This last year we've seen a spat of special elections run by large political groups who did not like a politician's position on an issue. The Republicans who wanted to limit collective bargaining to wages were slated for recall. Russell Pearce who sponsored the unpopular Arizona immigration bill is up for a recall election as well.
In both cases the politicians are being targetted for taking on extremely tough issues.
I love recall elections when they are driven by ethical issues. I am less excited to pound the "throw-the-bums-out" drum when the recall is driven by political issues. As you see, only the most powerful special interest groups have the resources to run an election recall.
The danger I see is that powerful special interest groups would have even more power if they can intimidate their opponents with threats of recall elections. Special interest groups wielding threats of recall elections will make our bad political system even worse.
Much as I dislike incumbant politicians, I am not in favor of the game of holding impeachment hearings or special elections based on political issues.
The best way to get rid of bad politicians are caucuses and primaries.
OccupySLC
I took some photos of occupyslc yesterday. I went to the march during the Salt Lake Farmers Market thinking that would be one of the events major events. The crowd wasn't that large.
I tried talking to a few of the protestors. They were mean and standoffish; so I actually spent more time going through the craft booths at the market ... a much more interesting crowd.
The occupy movement appears to be recruiting people for leftwing causes while slamming the brakes on the freedom movement. All of the sites I read are steeped in Marxian dialectics and full of inane demands.
My favorite shots were of a guy sitting in the tent city and two bearded ladies showing off their five o'clock shadows.
Friday, October 07, 2011
And That's the Political Truth
Let's face it. The real reason that I left my web sites off line for so long is that I've despaired about the ability of being able to communicate with other people.
I watched a video on NaturalNews.TV. In this video Bridget Brown argues that dollars are a better investment than gold because the dollar is backed by the might of the Federal Reserve while gold is backed by nothing.
I believe the reverse to be true. It is true that the value of a fiat currency comes from a political force. You need something really big and powerful like the Federal Reserve to make a fiat currency work. But politics is fickle. A fiat currency devalues if either the political force loses influence or becomes internally corrupt.
There is a long history of fiat currencies devaluing.
The value of gold lies in natural limitations. It is a scarce metal.
Now, I am pretty sure that a currency based on physical limits would outlast one based on political might.
People who already invest in gold would understand my argument.
Unfortunately, I cannot imagine any circumstance in which I communicate this idea to a person unfamiliar with monetary policy.
The US has a big impressive army and the Federal Reserve has a scary building with armed guards in the middle of town. There is a lot of political power behind the Federal Reserve.
People would have immediate sympathy for Ms. Brown along with awe of the might and power of the Federal Government.
Were I to try and argue with Ms. Brown, people would simply project false images and false motives in my direction until I shut up.
I watched a video on NaturalNews.TV. In this video Bridget Brown argues that dollars are a better investment than gold because the dollar is backed by the might of the Federal Reserve while gold is backed by nothing.
I believe the reverse to be true. It is true that the value of a fiat currency comes from a political force. You need something really big and powerful like the Federal Reserve to make a fiat currency work. But politics is fickle. A fiat currency devalues if either the political force loses influence or becomes internally corrupt.
There is a long history of fiat currencies devaluing.
The value of gold lies in natural limitations. It is a scarce metal.
Now, I am pretty sure that a currency based on physical limits would outlast one based on political might.
People who already invest in gold would understand my argument.
Unfortunately, I cannot imagine any circumstance in which I communicate this idea to a person unfamiliar with monetary policy.
The US has a big impressive army and the Federal Reserve has a scary building with armed guards in the middle of town. There is a lot of political power behind the Federal Reserve.
People would have immediate sympathy for Ms. Brown along with awe of the might and power of the Federal Government.
Were I to try and argue with Ms. Brown, people would simply project false images and false motives in my direction until I shut up.
Saturday, October 01, 2011
A Politically Ambitious Church
Americans aspire to a society that does not discriminate against people for their religion. This aspiration begs the question of how one should deal with a politically ambitious church.
Classical liberals were not absolutists. They knew that ideals pushed to absolutes leads to paradoxes. A free society admiring toleration cannot tolerate intolerance.
Speaking of politically active churches …
It's conference weekend.
Conference weekend is the biggest political event in the Utah Political season.
This Conference Weekend is extra exciting because the LDS Church is not just fielding one but two presidential candidates. Best of all, one of the candidates is considered the top contender for the Republican primary.
Currently, the most powerful member of the LDS Collective is Senate Majority leader Harry Reid … the primary supporter of the PPACA health care bill. PPACA drew heavily from the health care bill passed by Mitt Romney in Massachusetts.
The first presidential candidate fielded by the LDS Church was none-other than President Joseph Smith.
Joseph Smith gained notoriety in the 19th century when he wrote a parody of the Bible set on the American Continent. In this parody, the Native Americans were descendents of the Lost Tribe of Israel called the Nephites.
The king of the Nephites, King Benjamin, granted the people Democracy. The society degenerated into a Hegelian-style conflict between the righteous followers of Nephi and an evil group of gentiles.
The righteous were superior in both looks and grace, but evil gentiles formed a conspiracy and won the election. This led to a big war that concluded with God smiting the Nephites and turning them into red savages (Native Americans).
(Early American theological-nonsense taught that blacks were the descendents of Cain who killed Abel. So, it is biblical that Mitt Romney, the son of the righteous, is running against an evil gentile bearing the Mark-of-Cain who actually has the name Cain.)
The Early Mormons sent missionaries abroad to recruit members specifically to build political block in the US. They first sought to establish their political dominion in Missouri. This effort was not turning out well. Other Missourians didn't like being under the yoke of a political dominion. Anyway, the leader of the Missouri LDS Church declared an extermination war against the gentiles.
Yes, the political leaders of the early LDS Church were so power mad that they openly preached genocide.
Of course, you don't threaten to exterminate Missourians with repercussion, and the governor of Missouri responded to the declaration of an extermination war with an extermination order.
Interestingly, to this day, the LDS Church only teaches of the extermination order and fails to inform members that the extermination order was in response to an extermination war.
When the Governor of Missouri threatened to exterminate back, the Mormons fled to Navou. While in Navou, Joseph Smith ordered the assassination of the governor of Missouri.
Smith burned presses of ex-Mormons who complained of corruption in the church. Smith was arrested. At the Carthage jail, he was shot by an unidentified assailant.
I contend that if the trial took place, the LDS Church would have come to a whimpering end.
Who do you think the assassinate Smith? 1) An evil gentile (non-Mormon) who killed Smith out of the evilness inherent in being a gentile. 2) An Ex-Mormon who was upset at Smith for whatever reason, or could it have been 3) a Mormon who was heavily invested in the hierarchy of the church and didn't want the investment to fail.
We are taught that the assassin was a gentile who killed Smith simply because gentiles are evil. Personally, I suspect that the assassin was either a Mormon or an ex-Mormon.
After consolidating the LDS Church presidency, Brigham Young marched his followers outside of the United States into the Mexican Territories to set up a new country called "The Empire of Deseret."
We not only have a politically active church with presidential ambitions. We have a church that rejected the Constitution of the United States and set forth on imperial ambitions.
The Founders sought to create a society that did not persecute the citizens for their religious beliefs.
This does not mean that people should be blind to the beliefs or political affiliations of their leaders. When faced with candidates backed by a politically active church, the American people should scrutinize that affiliation.
As long as I can remember, each and every time there was a good looking Mormon politician who polled well, the LDS Church vetted the politician as a potential presidential candidate. The LDS was very active in assuring Harry Reid retained his political post.
While we aspire to religious tolerance, one must to be wary of any politically ambitious group or ideology, even those that are religious in nature.
As an "evil gentile" living behind the Zion Curtain, I can attest fully that Mormons actively marginalize non-Mormons in their pursuit of political dominion. Having had direct experience with the hierarchy of the LDS Church, I will attest that this is a group that freedom loving Americans should worry about.
While I promote religious tolerance, I am not such a fool as to ignore that there are groups in this world hostile to freedom.
*Yes, Hegel's historicism (1770-1831) was already the rage in both the US and Europe when Joseph Smith (1805-1844) penned the Book of Mormon. The newspapers of the day were filled with fantastical fake-history centered on thesis-antithesis conflicts. That Smith wrote a fantastical history of the Americas with a thesis anti-thesis conflict centered on Democracy is not that far fetched.
Classical liberals were not absolutists. They knew that ideals pushed to absolutes leads to paradoxes. A free society admiring toleration cannot tolerate intolerance.
Speaking of politically active churches …
It's conference weekend.
Conference weekend is the biggest political event in the Utah Political season.
This Conference Weekend is extra exciting because the LDS Church is not just fielding one but two presidential candidates. Best of all, one of the candidates is considered the top contender for the Republican primary.
Currently, the most powerful member of the LDS Collective is Senate Majority leader Harry Reid … the primary supporter of the PPACA health care bill. PPACA drew heavily from the health care bill passed by Mitt Romney in Massachusetts.
The first presidential candidate fielded by the LDS Church was none-other than President Joseph Smith.
Joseph Smith gained notoriety in the 19th century when he wrote a parody of the Bible set on the American Continent. In this parody, the Native Americans were descendents of the Lost Tribe of Israel called the Nephites.
The king of the Nephites, King Benjamin, granted the people Democracy. The society degenerated into a Hegelian-style conflict between the righteous followers of Nephi and an evil group of gentiles.
The righteous were superior in both looks and grace, but evil gentiles formed a conspiracy and won the election. This led to a big war that concluded with God smiting the Nephites and turning them into red savages (Native Americans).
(Early American theological-nonsense taught that blacks were the descendents of Cain who killed Abel. So, it is biblical that Mitt Romney, the son of the righteous, is running against an evil gentile bearing the Mark-of-Cain who actually has the name Cain.)
The Early Mormons sent missionaries abroad to recruit members specifically to build political block in the US. They first sought to establish their political dominion in Missouri. This effort was not turning out well. Other Missourians didn't like being under the yoke of a political dominion. Anyway, the leader of the Missouri LDS Church declared an extermination war against the gentiles.
Yes, the political leaders of the early LDS Church were so power mad that they openly preached genocide.
Of course, you don't threaten to exterminate Missourians with repercussion, and the governor of Missouri responded to the declaration of an extermination war with an extermination order.
Interestingly, to this day, the LDS Church only teaches of the extermination order and fails to inform members that the extermination order was in response to an extermination war.
When the Governor of Missouri threatened to exterminate back, the Mormons fled to Navou. While in Navou, Joseph Smith ordered the assassination of the governor of Missouri.
Smith burned presses of ex-Mormons who complained of corruption in the church. Smith was arrested. At the Carthage jail, he was shot by an unidentified assailant.
I contend that if the trial took place, the LDS Church would have come to a whimpering end.
Who do you think the assassinate Smith? 1) An evil gentile (non-Mormon) who killed Smith out of the evilness inherent in being a gentile. 2) An Ex-Mormon who was upset at Smith for whatever reason, or could it have been 3) a Mormon who was heavily invested in the hierarchy of the church and didn't want the investment to fail.
We are taught that the assassin was a gentile who killed Smith simply because gentiles are evil. Personally, I suspect that the assassin was either a Mormon or an ex-Mormon.
After consolidating the LDS Church presidency, Brigham Young marched his followers outside of the United States into the Mexican Territories to set up a new country called "The Empire of Deseret."
We not only have a politically active church with presidential ambitions. We have a church that rejected the Constitution of the United States and set forth on imperial ambitions.
The Founders sought to create a society that did not persecute the citizens for their religious beliefs.
This does not mean that people should be blind to the beliefs or political affiliations of their leaders. When faced with candidates backed by a politically active church, the American people should scrutinize that affiliation.
As long as I can remember, each and every time there was a good looking Mormon politician who polled well, the LDS Church vetted the politician as a potential presidential candidate. The LDS was very active in assuring Harry Reid retained his political post.
While we aspire to religious tolerance, one must to be wary of any politically ambitious group or ideology, even those that are religious in nature.
As an "evil gentile" living behind the Zion Curtain, I can attest fully that Mormons actively marginalize non-Mormons in their pursuit of political dominion. Having had direct experience with the hierarchy of the LDS Church, I will attest that this is a group that freedom loving Americans should worry about.
While I promote religious tolerance, I am not such a fool as to ignore that there are groups in this world hostile to freedom.
*Yes, Hegel's historicism (1770-1831) was already the rage in both the US and Europe when Joseph Smith (1805-1844) penned the Book of Mormon. The newspapers of the day were filled with fantastical fake-history centered on thesis-antithesis conflicts. That Smith wrote a fantastical history of the Americas with a thesis anti-thesis conflict centered on Democracy is not that far fetched.
Friday, September 30, 2011
Fixing Web Sites
My content web sites have been down for the last two months.
Bad things keep happening to me.
First, I made the mistake of entering a long term hosting contract with a second rate outfit called FastNext.com. I have two years left on the contract.
Anyway, Fastnext had some sort of server failure a month or so ago. My account was full of dump files as if the hard drive failed. Perhaps it was hacked?
I've had problems in the past when they had problems and restored old versions of the site. So, the code on my FastNext server is all jumbled.
The last time FastNext restored my account, they turned off the functionality that let me run PHP in files with the .html extension.
Earlier this year, I had purchased a cloud hosting account with WestHost for the Community Color sites. Since my content sites don't have much traffic, I decide to piggy back them on my WestHost cloud account.
Fearing that FastNext was hacked, I reworked the site from scratch before uploading it to WestHost. This took about 80 hours.
As I was completing the migration from FastNext to WestHost, my WestHost cloud server suffered a catastrophic hardware failure.
This hardware failure took several weeks to resolve.
So, I now have two versions of my content sites. An older version is sitting on FastNext and a newer version on WestHost.
I have absolutely no reason to think that the code on WestHost has a problem, but I am too paranoid to turn it on.
To make matters worse. I hit an elk last month. It cost $2K to fix my car. I don't want to spend the money on a new server until I pay off the repairs.
I think I've worked out a way to get the sites to run on the FastNext server and will start turning the sites back on.
I will start with Poems of Sunny Colorado. This is a simple poetry book my great aunt Susie wrote back in the 1920s.
Bad things keep happening to me.
First, I made the mistake of entering a long term hosting contract with a second rate outfit called FastNext.com. I have two years left on the contract.
Anyway, Fastnext had some sort of server failure a month or so ago. My account was full of dump files as if the hard drive failed. Perhaps it was hacked?
I've had problems in the past when they had problems and restored old versions of the site. So, the code on my FastNext server is all jumbled.
The last time FastNext restored my account, they turned off the functionality that let me run PHP in files with the .html extension.
Earlier this year, I had purchased a cloud hosting account with WestHost for the Community Color sites. Since my content sites don't have much traffic, I decide to piggy back them on my WestHost cloud account.
Fearing that FastNext was hacked, I reworked the site from scratch before uploading it to WestHost. This took about 80 hours.
As I was completing the migration from FastNext to WestHost, my WestHost cloud server suffered a catastrophic hardware failure.
This hardware failure took several weeks to resolve.
So, I now have two versions of my content sites. An older version is sitting on FastNext and a newer version on WestHost.
I have absolutely no reason to think that the code on WestHost has a problem, but I am too paranoid to turn it on.
To make matters worse. I hit an elk last month. It cost $2K to fix my car. I don't want to spend the money on a new server until I pay off the repairs.
I think I've worked out a way to get the sites to run on the FastNext server and will start turning the sites back on.
I will start with Poems of Sunny Colorado. This is a simple poetry book my great aunt Susie wrote back in the 1920s.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Occupy Wall Street?
I was reading some really stupid blogs about an "Occupy Wall Street."
Apparently it is some sort of progressive movement in which absolute morons are protesting the inevitable results of the progressive ideology that dominates Wall Street.
This is like the idiots in Mao's Cultural Revolution rising against the depravity of Mao's Great Leap Forward.
Noam Chomsky and his merry band of mischieve makers have had hegemony in the schools the produced both Bush and Obama ... then they have the temerity to form thuggish groups that struggle against the very corruption that they brought into existence.
The captured federal reserve, centralized exchanges and other corrupt institutions of Wall Street were created by progressives.
Ever since Karl Marx penned Das Kapital, the left has been on a single minded mission to create corrupt financial insitutions that fail.
The goal of Marx was to use the tools of the capitalist to destroy the capitalist.
The progressive thugs who are occupying Wall Street are part of a ugly game of the left to seize power by undermining our society.
The progressive thugs who are occupying Wall Street are as ugly as the progessive manipulators who create the corrupt insitutions that crashed the world economies.
Apparently it is some sort of progressive movement in which absolute morons are protesting the inevitable results of the progressive ideology that dominates Wall Street.
This is like the idiots in Mao's Cultural Revolution rising against the depravity of Mao's Great Leap Forward.
Noam Chomsky and his merry band of mischieve makers have had hegemony in the schools the produced both Bush and Obama ... then they have the temerity to form thuggish groups that struggle against the very corruption that they brought into existence.
The captured federal reserve, centralized exchanges and other corrupt institutions of Wall Street were created by progressives.
Ever since Karl Marx penned Das Kapital, the left has been on a single minded mission to create corrupt financial insitutions that fail.
The goal of Marx was to use the tools of the capitalist to destroy the capitalist.
The progressive thugs who are occupying Wall Street are part of a ugly game of the left to seize power by undermining our society.
The progressive thugs who are occupying Wall Street are as ugly as the progessive manipulators who create the corrupt insitutions that crashed the world economies.
Sunday, September 25, 2011
What Ron Paul Could Learn from Herman Cain
Apparently Herman Cain's numbers surged after the Florida CPAC debate.
Meanwhile, Ron Paul's numbers are stagnant and there is zero reason to think Mr. Paul could ever win the election.
Why?
The reason is that Herman Cain is soaring is that Mr. Cain actually stated an idea.
Herman Cain's 999 Plan is not even a good idea ... but it was an idea stated in a strong affirmative manner in a nation desperately seeking for ideas.
Libertarians actually have better ideas about restoring prosperity than Mr. Cain.
The problem is that Libertarians state everything in dismal terms that the public just doesn't get.
The classical liberals of long ago realized that government was a limiting factor in society. Reducing government reduces limits and allows for an unlimited people … creating prosperity.
Marx and Hegel were reactionaries. They sought to destroy the new order created by the classical liberals and return the world to a structured society akin to feudalism.
The goal of Marx was to destroy the free market created by the classical liberals from within. To destroy the free market, Karl Marx created a perversion of the free market called "Capitalism."
Karl Marx was the father of Capitalism. Marx wrote a long treatise called Das Kapital. In Das Kapital, Marx described how a ruling class could capture and control centralized exchanges to become an oppressive force.
Marx showed that an unelected group of people ruling the economy from centralized exchanges and central banks can be as bad for society as a top heavy government.
Marx was successful in getting people to rise in rebellion against his strawman capitalist. The dystopia Marx created with his false dichotomy; however, was a thousand times worse than his anti-thesis capitalism.
Unfortunately, Libertarians are caught in a rut of arguing for top-down capitalism rather than a bottom up free market.
Rather than trying to restore a free market that liberates everyone in society, Libertarians argue for Marx's anti-thesis … a capitalism in which a corrupt ruling class lords over the people through the manipulation of capital.
Since Libertarians are a notoriously pig-headed group, they never realize the extent to which they are dupes.
To restore the free market, Libertarians must confront both the bloated government and the captured markets.
Which brings me back to the topic of this post …
If Ron Paul went from just being a curmudgeon to a person who supported alternatives to the captured markets, then Ron Paul would surge ahead in the polls.
Mr. Paul is doing good with his effort to "Audit the Federal Reserve." Yet auditing the Federal Reserve does not create a vision for how we can restore society.
Simply repealing ObamaCare does not create a vision of how we could restore health freedom in a market dominated by top heavy insurance companies.
Libertarians could easily change this by creating free market alternatives to the captured centralized markets that dominate today's financial world.
Sadly, Libertarians would prefer that we lose the last of our Constitutional liberties before accepting that they are nothing but stooges when they argue for Marx's antithesis.
Ron Paul would rather lose the presidency than to take the half day required to present positive alternatives to oppressive institutions like insurance or the captured exchanges on Wall Street.
This effort to audit the fed is pretty much the only positive thing I see Conservatives doing at the moment (I will blog on the Utah Monetary Summit tomorrow). It is so sad that Republicans simply will not challenge any of the root assumptions of Marx's Capitalism.
Marx's Capitalism was corrupt. One does not resolve Marx's dichotomy by arguing for the anti-thesis. One resolves Marx's dichotomy by rejecting it altogether and by restoring the classical liberal vision of the US Founders.
Libertarians would win if they presented freedom in a positive manner.
Meanwhile, Ron Paul's numbers are stagnant and there is zero reason to think Mr. Paul could ever win the election.
Why?
The reason is that Herman Cain is soaring is that Mr. Cain actually stated an idea.
Herman Cain's 999 Plan is not even a good idea ... but it was an idea stated in a strong affirmative manner in a nation desperately seeking for ideas.
Libertarians actually have better ideas about restoring prosperity than Mr. Cain.
The problem is that Libertarians state everything in dismal terms that the public just doesn't get.
The classical liberals of long ago realized that government was a limiting factor in society. Reducing government reduces limits and allows for an unlimited people … creating prosperity.
Marx and Hegel were reactionaries. They sought to destroy the new order created by the classical liberals and return the world to a structured society akin to feudalism.
The goal of Marx was to destroy the free market created by the classical liberals from within. To destroy the free market, Karl Marx created a perversion of the free market called "Capitalism."
Karl Marx was the father of Capitalism. Marx wrote a long treatise called Das Kapital. In Das Kapital, Marx described how a ruling class could capture and control centralized exchanges to become an oppressive force.
Marx showed that an unelected group of people ruling the economy from centralized exchanges and central banks can be as bad for society as a top heavy government.
Marx was successful in getting people to rise in rebellion against his strawman capitalist. The dystopia Marx created with his false dichotomy; however, was a thousand times worse than his anti-thesis capitalism.
Unfortunately, Libertarians are caught in a rut of arguing for top-down capitalism rather than a bottom up free market.
Rather than trying to restore a free market that liberates everyone in society, Libertarians argue for Marx's anti-thesis … a capitalism in which a corrupt ruling class lords over the people through the manipulation of capital.
Since Libertarians are a notoriously pig-headed group, they never realize the extent to which they are dupes.
To restore the free market, Libertarians must confront both the bloated government and the captured markets.
Which brings me back to the topic of this post …
If Ron Paul went from just being a curmudgeon to a person who supported alternatives to the captured markets, then Ron Paul would surge ahead in the polls.
Mr. Paul is doing good with his effort to "Audit the Federal Reserve." Yet auditing the Federal Reserve does not create a vision for how we can restore society.
Simply repealing ObamaCare does not create a vision of how we could restore health freedom in a market dominated by top heavy insurance companies.
Libertarians could easily change this by creating free market alternatives to the captured centralized markets that dominate today's financial world.
Sadly, Libertarians would prefer that we lose the last of our Constitutional liberties before accepting that they are nothing but stooges when they argue for Marx's antithesis.
Ron Paul would rather lose the presidency than to take the half day required to present positive alternatives to oppressive institutions like insurance or the captured exchanges on Wall Street.
This effort to audit the fed is pretty much the only positive thing I see Conservatives doing at the moment (I will blog on the Utah Monetary Summit tomorrow). It is so sad that Republicans simply will not challenge any of the root assumptions of Marx's Capitalism.
Marx's Capitalism was corrupt. One does not resolve Marx's dichotomy by arguing for the anti-thesis. One resolves Marx's dichotomy by rejecting it altogether and by restoring the classical liberal vision of the US Founders.
Libertarians would win if they presented freedom in a positive manner.
Friday, September 23, 2011
What is Right About the Income Tax
There is one really good thing about the income tax:
The income tax is a personal tax. The tax confronts taxpayers directly with a portion of the money the government takes away from them each year.
The Fair Tax is a big tax placed against merchants. The FAIR tax will make consumers despise the small businesses saddled with collecting the tax. They won't associate the tax with excessive government.
A personal tax allows the government to set a personal progressive tax rate.
The ideal tax structure would be a personal tax that taxes consumption.
I developed a program called the "Object Tax." (The tax uses ideas from Object Oriented Design).
This design taxes an abstract object between income and consumption. Using advance design techniques allows us to combine the best part of the income tax with a consumption tax.
The tax structure is easy. All financial object have a tax attribute of "Pre-Taxed" or "Taxed." The tax is easy to implement.
Your paycheck will go into a pre-tax bank account. You will pay a tax at your personalized tax rate when you go to spend the money. The personal tax rate would be based on a combination of your estimated net worth and yearly income.
So, if I get paid $1,000 and my tax rate is 10%, then I would get only $900 when I withdrew the funds.
In other words, one pays the tax when transferring money from a pre-taxed account to a taxed-account for spending. People will pay taxes when they do their budgetting. This program does a great job raising awareness about the amount of money government takes.
The object tax eliminates capital gains tax. Investments will exist in a pre-tax account. Investors would pay a tax when they transfer money from their investment account to their spending account. This allows us to sock rich investors will a high progressive tax without adversely affecting investment decisions.
Inheritance tax would be as follows: Pre-taxed items would be inherited into pre-taxed accounts. Taxed items would be inherited as taxed items.
This way one can inherit the farm without breaking it up. It also allows people to inherit all the heirlooms without a lot of tax complications. The government will collect money if the heirs sell the family farm.
The Object Tax assures that all items will be taxed once at a personalized rate. The program also avoids double taxation which happens with Herman Cain's 999 tax.
The income tax is a personal tax. The tax confronts taxpayers directly with a portion of the money the government takes away from them each year.
The Fair Tax is a big tax placed against merchants. The FAIR tax will make consumers despise the small businesses saddled with collecting the tax. They won't associate the tax with excessive government.
A personal tax allows the government to set a personal progressive tax rate.
The ideal tax structure would be a personal tax that taxes consumption.
I developed a program called the "Object Tax." (The tax uses ideas from Object Oriented Design).
This design taxes an abstract object between income and consumption. Using advance design techniques allows us to combine the best part of the income tax with a consumption tax.
The tax structure is easy. All financial object have a tax attribute of "Pre-Taxed" or "Taxed." The tax is easy to implement.
Your paycheck will go into a pre-tax bank account. You will pay a tax at your personalized tax rate when you go to spend the money. The personal tax rate would be based on a combination of your estimated net worth and yearly income.
So, if I get paid $1,000 and my tax rate is 10%, then I would get only $900 when I withdrew the funds.
In other words, one pays the tax when transferring money from a pre-taxed account to a taxed-account for spending. People will pay taxes when they do their budgetting. This program does a great job raising awareness about the amount of money government takes.
The object tax eliminates capital gains tax. Investments will exist in a pre-tax account. Investors would pay a tax when they transfer money from their investment account to their spending account. This allows us to sock rich investors will a high progressive tax without adversely affecting investment decisions.
Inheritance tax would be as follows: Pre-taxed items would be inherited into pre-taxed accounts. Taxed items would be inherited as taxed items.
This way one can inherit the farm without breaking it up. It also allows people to inherit all the heirlooms without a lot of tax complications. The government will collect money if the heirs sell the family farm.
The Object Tax assures that all items will be taxed once at a personalized rate. The program also avoids double taxation which happens with Herman Cain's 999 tax.