Saturday, September 29, 2012

Which Path is Better?

I wrote this blog post to ask a person a question twitter.

PPACA was based on Romney's Massachusetts' health care plan. (ObamaCare was based on RomneyCare).

PPACA is a network of Health Exchanges implemented by the states regulated by the Federal Government. The government run health exchanges are setups in which the government defines and tightly regulates the administration of benefits while large politically capital pools speculate on the cost of care.

Mitt Romney has already announced that he intends to keep most of PPACA. So, he will have a symbolic repeal of PPACA. This repeal will leave the state run Health Exchanges in place. After the symbolic repeal of ObamaCare, the Republicans will write legislation to support the exchanges.

The new legislation will pretty much force states into running health exchanges.

In the current Republican Plan, the Federal Regulation of the health exchanges is being replaced by a "Health Compact." A compact is a non-elected extra-governmental entity created by the states that will coordinate the Health Exchanges.

Once the Republican Plan is in place, there will be this massive Health Compact scheme between the states that voters have little ability to influence that regulates the exchanges.

Romney will repeal Federal mandates that individuals buy insurance, but he will give the states the ability to mandate purchase of insurance. I suspect that the states will systematically pass mandates because if they don't they will have massive unfunded liabilities created by the exchanges.

In the Romney plan, states will have the ability to pass a public option and to create state run health insurance agencies. You will see the blue states adopt these measures in a move to fully socialized care.

If Romney wins the 2012 election, we will be further along the road to fully socialized health care than if Obama is elected.

I am opposed to the Health Exchanges and socialized medicine. I am absolutely livid that Republicans steadfastly refuse to debate the merits of the free market contrasted with government run health exchanges.

So, I decided to start this split the split the vote effort to encourage people to vote third party. I will be voting for Gary Johnson. But, you know, feel free to write in people of vote for any candidate except Romney or Obama.

Imagine if 10% of the people voted third party in this hotly contended race. Both parties would look at the vote and determine that their message and methodology fail. They will then go back to the drawing board to work on a new platform and election strategy. This is especially true if the third party vote in a swing state affected the outcome of the election. Imagine if the third party vote in Colorado was 10% while the vote for two primary candidates was close?

Imagine if Obama takes Colorado, while the vote total for Romney and Johnson was greater than Obama's? The Republican Party might realize that throwing the Tea Party under the bus was a bad idea.

Yes, I realize that a split vote will give Obama a lame duck term, but I ask: Which is better?

An election in which Obama is left as a severely weakened lame duck, or one in which Romney rebrands PPACA as a Health Compact and moves the Republican Party left?

I want to see a restoration of free market health care. I see the 2012 election as a choice between worse and worse. If Obama is elected because of a split vote, both parties would attempt to create free market platforms to attract the independent vote. If Romney is elected, he will impose the Health Exchanges while moving the Republican Party left. The Democrats will react to Romney by moving even further.

I am a free marketeer who dreams of a restoration of the American experiment in self-rule. From my point of view, we will be in a much worse situation in 2016 with Romney as president than with Obama as a lame duck president.

Saturday, September 22, 2012

Worst Case Scenario

In my opinion, the worst possible scenario for the 2012 election is for Obama to win over 50% of the popular vote while Romney wins the Electoral Vote.

In such a case there will be a shrill call to arms claiming that the Republicans twarted democracy and that the the Romney election is an affront to the world spirit. Winning 50% + of the vote would set up Obama for a run in 2016 on the grounds that Romney was an illegitimate president. Romney is very likely to lose if Obama ran in 2016.

If there was a strong "Split the Vote" campaign and a large number of undecided voters realized that splitting a vote would force both parties to change, the split vote campaign would deny Obama the majority.

Imagine that Obama got 48% of the vote and Romney got 46% of the vote but won the electoral college with Libertarians getting 3% of the vote. The majority of people are clearly against the Obama regime. The claims that Obama was the true victor of the campaign diminishes. There would still be protests in the street, but the protests would not resonate.

More importantly, the inability to get a majority would reduce Obama's chances of getting the 2016 Democratic nomination.

If a split vote resulted in an election with Obama receiving less than a majority, then he would be an embattled lame duck without a clear mandate. Remember how the Republican party completely fell apart in the lame duck years of Bush?

Get Out and Split the Vote

Republicans are running full force with a fear campaign. In general, people who run on fear are scarier than the people they fear.

Personally, when I look at Obama, I see a lame duck who will fully discredit progressive socialism in his second term. This is especially true if Obama wins because Libertarians split the vote.

Yes, the MSM is currently in a full blown campaign for Obama. But Obama cannot run for a third term. The press will turn on Obama and his agenda in the next four years. Remember how the world turned against Bush in his lame duck years?

The global consensus is that the president of the United States has way too much power. The result of this consensus is that the world turns away from the ideology of the US president. If Obama has a lame duck term, the people of the world will turn away from the progressive, international socialism he advocates.

In contrast, really bad things will happen if Romney executes the plan where he wins the electoral vote while Obama wins the popular vote.

The press and Occupy Wall Street will hit the streets with shrill protests against the electoral college and claims that Republicans suppressed the vote with photo-id laws.

Romney will receive blame for the economic decisions of the Obama years. Notably, the press has ignored inflation. When it starts to report about inflation, it will project inflation on Romney while ignoring the quantitative easing that set up inflation.

The same thing happened with Bush. The press blames bush for the deregulation of derivatives. The deregulation of derivatives happened in the Clinton Administration. The Commodities Future Modernization Act of 2000 was signed by William Jefferson Clinton, not by George Walker Bush, yet Bush bears the blame!!!

Romney has already declared that he intends to keep most of PPACA. The freedom movement will take a substantial hit for little gain.

The 2012 presidential election is one of the most anticipated and divisive votes in US history. Usually a vote for a third party is a throw away vote. The nature of this vote means that the election returns will be scrutinized in minutia. Pundits and analysts would be force to react if the people reject their false dichotomy.

The parties are spending billions in one of the most divisive campaigns in history. If the American people voted in droves for a third, the American people would shake the political machine to its foundation and force both parties to change.

For this reason, I've decided to vote third party and encourage others to do so. I will post articles about why I am voting third party on the page I will use the Twitter Hashtag #SplitTheVote on tweets arguing for a split vote.

Monday, September 17, 2012

Life in Zion

I appreciate Richard Mack's arguments for the independent sheriff who is elected by the people and sworn to uphold the Constitution and individual rights.

The sad reality is that the local sheriff is often corrupt.

In the paper today (WSJ Article) I read about how the police in Springdale, Utah would issue citations to foreigners visiting Zion National Park. Demand on the spot cash payment, then destroy the citation.

NOTE: Springdale is a small town in Washington County at the entrance to Zion National Park. It is an epicenter of the conflict between local and Federal Control.
This small corruption is nothing compared to the billion dollar police confiscation industry, which is nothing compared with the trillions of institutionalized theft in the financial industry.

This minor corruption is simply the report published the day after the Utah Freedom Conference. The primary thrust of the Utah Freedom Conference was to push for a massive expansion of state powers and local law enforcement to counter the Federal Expansion that has taken place during the Obama administration.

I see this effort as doomed to failure because local corruption is ubiquitous and federal corruption. For that matter, living in a small county with a corrupt sheriff is extremely oppressive.

The Utah Freedom Conference has great arguments for state sovereignty, but the arguments will not be sufficient to restore the American Experiment in self-rule.

END NOTE: I believe we could win the argument for restoring self rule if a group will willing to discuss free market health care reform. Sadly, there are no conservatives who are willing to discuss that topic so we are doomed to a systematic clamping down on individual liberty.

Sunday, September 16, 2012

Undermining Liberty to Get at the Land

I feel even worse about the future of America after the Utah Freedom Conference than I did before.

The primary aim of the conference was to use anger aimed at Obama to get at the land.

The Mountain States have large mountain ranges and expansive deserts. Because Western States have little arable land, most of the land is public land.

The highlight of the meeting was a speech by America's Sheriff (Richard Mack of Graham County) who spoke about the long standing tradition of the local sheriff who extolled that Sheriffs have the authority to toss federal agents off the land.

Utah has a long and hostile history with federal agents. For example, after the Mountain Meadows Massacre, Brigham Young had admonished the Saints in Southern Utah to be on the look out for Federal Agents.

In 1869, John Wesley Powell and 9 federal agents headed off into the Utah Territories to survey the Green and Colorado Rivers. Three of the men panicked at Lava Falls. These men climbed the North Rim in search of settlers.

The settlers claimed that the men were killed by a peaceful band of Indians (You know how them injuns are). Letters and diaries from the settlers seem to indicate that they were done in by the settlers who were briefly overcome by excessive righteousness (Sandra Tanner).

Americans love their public lands and open space. Attempts to get at the land will be perceived as an action with a great cost to the many that benefit only a few.

With our captured financial system, few in the middle class will be able to buy the liquidated public lands. Most of it will go to people with inside connections at the banks. Efforts to sell off public lands will turn open lands into gated lands that only the upper income will be able to access.

I fear that a culture war between fanatics screaming "state's rights" and wanting to sell public lands will not play out well. It will be a battle that turns millions of Americans away from the cause of liberty with very little gain.

Selling public land does not advance the cause of property rights.

People often confuse property rights with land. The ideal of property rights is the ideal that individuals have rights to the things they own. For example, I have a property right to this article I just wrote. My mind and my body are my property. I don't own any land, but I do have property rights to my car, my computer and my writings. If someone wanted to buy this article from me and republish it, they would have to pay me. My copyright is a property right.

The ideal of property rights does not say that all land must be privately owned. There is a great deal of land on Mars which no-one currently owns. After people move to Mars, there will be open questions about property rights on Mars.

People who claim that the ideal of property rights demand that all land must be privately owned end up undermining the cause of property rights with an absurd absolute.

Using the anger directed at PPACA (ObamaCare) is unlikely to go well. It will most likely detract from efforts to repeal ObamaCare.

Which leads me to why I am so horrifically depressed … for four solid years I've been trying to find a group interested in discussing Free Market Health Care reform. Despite the fact that I spent my every last dime trying to find groups to discuss this issue, conservatives slammed the door in my face.

After four years of watching Conservatives steadfastly refusing to discuss free market health care reform, they turn on the American people with the aim of using anger about PPACA to close off access to public lands.

This strange ideal that county sheriffs should throw Federal Agents off state lands will not end well. The cause of State's Right harkens back to the Confederate side of the Civil War, Jim Crow Laws and segregation.

There are positive aspects of state sovereignty. When states defend the people against the excesses of the Federal Government, the states look good. When the Federal Government defend people against the excesses of the state, the Federal Government looks good.

I applaud the admirable efforts made by states to defend people against PPACA. However, this cause can quickly go astray when local power brokers simply use anger at the Federal government to grab the land or to grab power.

By focusing on the wrong issue, the Utah Freedom Conference is undermining and not advancing the cause of liberty.

Thursday, September 13, 2012

Personal Attacks Posing as Science

I snorted coffee through my nose when I read this "news story" by George Wuerthner,on a supposed newspaper called News West.

"The wolf-hunts are predicated upon morally corrupt and inaccurate assumptions about wolf behavior and impacts that is not supported by recent scientific research. State wildlife agencies pander to the lowest common denominator in the hunting community—men who need to booster their own self esteem and release misdirected anger by killing."

The article is primarily personal attacks on people the writer dislikes with a few vague allusions to science. When did the author develop magical powers to see inside the minds of others. I've met people who claim to have had their animals killed by predators: Wuerthner dismisses them with the statement:

"While any loss may represent a significant financial blow to individual ranchers, the livestock industry as a whole is hardly threatened by wolf predation."

Imagine the outrage that would ensue if a Libertarian said: "Yeah, a few houses would burn down if we stopped paying firemen, but the housing industry as a whole would hardly be be threatened by fires."?

Lost livestock is a tax that ranchers must pay to feed Wuerthner's self-righteousness. The consumers bear the tax in higher food prices. A large wolf population will put free ranch meat out of the price of most Americans.

BTW: If I ever demanded a tax on others to feed my self-righteousness, I would be drummed out of the country.

Wolves happen to be biological entities that experience exponential growth in their population. Hunting is a way to manage that exponential growth.

Supporting Community

I realize it's a waste of 50 bucks, but I decided to go to the Utah Freedom Conference after all.

Yes, I am upset that the "Utah Freedom Conference" fails to advance "freedom." The conference is held by a bunch of politicos who wish to use the anger aimed at Obama to grab power. Topics of the conference include expanding the sheriff's office to counter the Feds. (POWER GRAB) Expanding state powers to counter the feds. (POWER GRAB). Getting state hands on Federal Lands (POWER GRAB). The only interesting topic is in starting a local currency to counter Wall Street.

Health Care is the most important issue of our day. The second one mentions alternatives to insurance, Conservatives shut their hears and make incoherent bubbly noise to defend their power base in the insurance industry.

Anyway, the Utah Freedom Conference is by people who want to use fear of Obama to gain power themselves. They refuse to discuss issues that diminish their power. The conference is pure hypocrisy.

But it's the only game in town.

I decided to attend the conference because I happen to believe it is very important to support the people around me.

As you see, the American experiment in self rule is not the ideal of people living in isolation. The Founders discovered the secret of prosperity. Strong individuals make for a vibrant community.

Conversely, when people try to make a strong community (at the cost of individuals) they end up diminishing both the individual and the community.

We become strong individuals when we support the people around us.

I actually do put my money where my mouth is. You may have noticed that I've created a collection of directories for the Mountain West under the banner: Community Color. Sites included are Salt Lake Sites, Denver Color, Provo Utah dot US, I started making link lists for local communities back in 2000.

These sites exist simply because I believe in supporting people around me. The real heart of a free society is free minds that freely associate.

A free society, by its very nature, should be open and inclusive. Conservatives undermine the free market when they automatically close their minds to challenges to the power base (insurance).

Anyway, I will attend the Utah Freedom Conference even though I suspect it will simply be a waste of time and money. It would be fun to someday attend a conference that is actually about freedom, and not simply a game of political players grubbing for power.

Sunday, September 09, 2012

Is Mormonism a Secret Combination?

I am a big fan of the American Experiment in Self-Rule. I would love to find people in Salt Lake actually interested in talking about free market health care. I simply cannot find any such group.

Regardless, I follow any local online conversation I can about freedom. Anyway, Someone with the alias freedomfighter wrote on LDS Freedom Forum a post called: 61 points about Secret Combinations in the Book of Mormon that begins:

"Secret combinations existed in times of old" (2 Nephi 26:22),
"They [evil gentiles] have secret oaths, covenants, agreements, signs, wonders, and plans (Alma 37:27,32)

A common thread of conspiracies is that they start with a belief that some other "evil" entity is engaged in a conspiracy. Therefore, our group must counter their group.

The Book of Mormon is about how an evil conspiracy destroyed a Democracy set up by a fictional group called the Nephites. The article cites some of the ominous warnings of the conspiracy (aka, the secret combination).

Since the LDS Church is a large organized group (with secret rituals) that seeks power, it is very easy to accuse it of being a "secret combination."

Anyway, I've been trying to figure out the dynamics of the local system in which people use freedom rhetoric, but fail to carry through in promoting individual liberty.

There will be a Utah Freedom Conference on September 15th. This conference does not include discussions on individual freedom; nor does it include discussions about free market health care reform.

The subjects of the conference are: Expanding state powers to counter the expansion of Federal Powers. Expanding the powers of local sheriffs to counter evil environmentalists. Getting at public lands, Creating a Utah bank to coin a new precious metal backed currency, and (most important of all) expanding the power and influence of the Mormon Church.

Every single one of these topics is about making select local institutions bigger. There is no talk about defending or expanding individual freedom.

Shouldn't a freedom conference have discussions about freedom or at least discussions about expanding individual liberty?

The most significant issue of our day is health freedom. Free market health care reform is not even on the docket. I should note that, in four years of active search, I've been unable to find a single person in Utah willing to discuss free market health care reform. They throw me out the door when they realize that I am serious.

Why are the minds in this state so completely and utterly shut to the discussion of free market health care reform?

The Utah Freedom Conference reminds me about why I gave up on "liberalism." Modern liberals talk about freedom. When "liberals" talk about "freedom" the conversation always ends up with a demand to expand the state and reduce individual liberty.

I gave up on liberals because they don't support liberty. I am sad, but not surprised, to see Conservatives pulling the same stunt.

The trick of using freedom rhetoric to expand the state started with conservatives. This trick was first perfected by royalists after the revolution. (The Hegelian Right came before the Hegelian Left)!

Hegel (1770-1830) presented a philosophy of history in which the world spirit progressed through national conflicts on the world stage. In this theory Hegel develops a strange ontological concept of freedom in which individual freedom is part of the mechanism through which the world spirit progresses. Individual free will is a little like the random number generator used in computer games to help keep the game of war interesting.

This clever redefinition of freedom allows royalists to dismiss the American Revolution as simply a phase in the evolution of the world. The American experiment in self-rule was just a historical mistake that will soon be rectified.

The Keynote Speaker of the Utah Freedom Conference, Tim Ballard, plays a similar game in his book The Covenant. The book claims history is an ever changing progression of collective covenants between the Heavenly Father and man.

The idea of covenant is not new. Prior to the Revolution, royalists claimed that the monarchy received divine authority through a covenant between God and the ancient patriarchs of Israel. (The Divine Right of Kings).

During the early 1800s, several people presented fantastical histories in which there was an ever progressing covenant with God. God made the first covenant with Adam. Adam's first son (Cain) killed his younger brother (Abel). God was so upset at Abel for breaking the covenant that he smited Cain and turned the descendants of Cain black (the mark of Cain). Some people used this fake history to justify slavery.

The Book or Mormon claims that the lost tribes of Israel (the Nephites) built a submarine and came to the new world to establish a new collective Covenant with God. Depraved evil gentiles formed secret combinations that destroyed the covenant. God got mad. God smited the Nephites and turned them into red savages.

Golly, We know these stories are true because there are people with black skin and indigenous Americans have darker skin. There must be a reason for this!!!

Tim Ballard claims that the US Revolution was directed by the Heavenly Father to create a new covenant. His book presents the US Founders as hapless fools used by the Heavenly Father to create the conditions for the restoration of the true church (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints).

In this view, The Declaration of Independence and Constitution were scriptural works revealed by the Heavenly Father. They were not the product of reason, as evil gentiles such as myself contend.

Joseph Smith (1805-1844) advanced a theory called "free agency." Free agency is a little like the random number generator used in a computer games. In the game called life, The Heavenly Father created an ever progressing conflict between the righteous and evil gentiles. Individuals have free agency to side up with the righteous (the one true church) or with the evil gentiles (everybody else). Free agency plays a part in the Heavenly Father's collective covenant because we have to side up for the conflict.

Perhaps this strange definition of "free agency" could explain why a conference on freedom is all about expanding the power of groups that the conference givers control. The righteous need to make the political entities they control stronger to counter then things controlled by the secret combination of the gentiles.

Tim Ballard's thesis that the purpose of the Constitution is simply to create conditions for the rise of the LDS Church might explain why I've found it so difficult to get Utahans to actually talk about freedom. After all, I am an evil gentile who must be part of the secret combination of gentiles.

Anyway, having just read about how evil gentiles set up secret combinations and form secret covenants to undermine the righteous, I thought I should point out that it is easier to make the case that the LDS Church is a secret combination than to claim that all the gentiles not the church are part of a secret combination.

The LDS Church is a large politically active entity with a top-down political structure. The hierarchy makes claims to covenants, it has secret rituals and it promotes a fantastical history of ancient submarines and cultures that vanished without a trace.

Of course, my suggestion that the LDS Church is the same form as the secret covenants Joseph Smith warns against can be dismissed because I am obviously one of those evil gentiles your bishop warned you about.

ADDED: I just discovered a short article by Darrin Andrews called "Waking Up to Secret Combinations. On LDS Freedom Portal. LDS Freedom Portal reiterates the notion that the Constitution was revealed by the Heavenly Father. From its Homepage:

"Over the years the leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have written and spoken much on political matters. In addition, ancient and modern scripture make reference to revealed and inspired governmental laws."

Friday, September 07, 2012

Idea Free Zone

I watched substantial portions of both the RNC and DNC Convention.

My first observation was that the conventions contained almost no new information. Both conventions were about positioning their presidential candidate, while framing the opposition in a negative light. The conventions themselves were idea free zones.

I feel that the parties are bringing our nation to the brink of failure and there is nothing that the millions of people who are disgusted with the parties can do about it. The corrupt parties have the people locked out.

I wish to emphasize that the parties were not part of the Constitution. The US Founders hated factions. Sadly, they failed to anticipate the two party system.

In my post on the Hegelian Left and Right, I argue that the parties (both Conservative and Progressive) seem to reflect the rational style of the royalist opposition to our experiment in self rule.

Both the DNC and RNC had the same form. Both conventions focused exclusively on the presidential race, and both conventions really pushed ideas to the back burner.

The political parties are top-down centralized constructs. The form of the parties creates a political dynamic that favors political and economic centralization.

Because of the structure of the parties, America is forces into an unending cycle of economic and political consolidation regardless of which party wins.

The president is the head of the Party. If Romney wins the presidency, his inclination will be to move to the center in preparation for the 2016 election. In his efforts to shift left, he will silence the free-market voices in the Republican party while passing legislation to expand the state.

To counter Romney's moving left, Democrats will move radically left.

The absurd structure of the partisan system actually means that it is better for the freedom movement to lose the presidency. If Obama wins a lame duck term, he will have to bunker down to defend the unwarranted government expansion of his first term. If Obama wins because Libertarians split the vote, we would have four years in which both the Democrats and Republicans competed for the freedom vote.

During the conventions, I kept vacillating between which candidate I want to vote against most. Voting against both presidential candidates by going third party is the best route.

Thursday, September 06, 2012

Democrats Controlled the Government in 2006

Dear Mr. Biden,

Just a reminder. Democrats won the Congress in 2006 in a landslide election. George Bush was in complete bunker mode from the 2006 to 2008 and spent every dime of political capital on the surge.

Internationally, the world turned left in reaction to Bush's wars. One by one, countries were electing in socialists or outright communist regimes before the great crash.

As pointed out in the last post, the derivatives that played a role in the crash were created during the Clinton Administration.

A final observation. People invest looking forward and not looking back.

It was clear to anyone with a brain that 2008 would be a blow out for Democrats. The people who were removing their money from the market did so because they felt the future would be bad, not because they thought the past was bad.

I reject completely the notion that the king is the economy. I think it is dangerous to develop a cult of the presidency in which we attribute the economic condition to the president.

When we begin to believe pure speculative statements like "Obama saved us from a Depression" we fault in a mode of superstition and not reason.

Advocates of the Austrian School of economics actually claim that Obama's policies turned a recession into a prolonged recession because the bailouts failed to let the economy hit bottom.

Restoring American Individualism

Communitarianism is a system with the community as the primary focus. Individualism is a system with the individual (or family unit) as the primary focus.

Communities are composed of individuals. When you have strong individuals, you get a strong community. Community is an abstraction. When we focus on the community as it it were a solid thing, the individuals languish and we get a weak community.

The left seeks power by consolidating the community. To do this they attack individualism by ridiculing a straw-man called the self-made man. The self-made straw-man is absurd. Individualism simply means that the free individual is the focus of society. Free people in a free market make more associations in the community than people living in top-down structured societies.

Unfortunately, the advocates of liberty do an absolutely pathetic job of defending individualism. Reactionary conservatives make the mistake of defending the straw-man. Defending the straw-man allows the left to project false images on to the free market. When the right defends the straw-man, the left is able to project the false image that the free market has people living in isolation in a winner take all society.

Free marketeers are also prone to start defending the free market on economic terms instead of moral terms.

We have a top down financial system with money produced by the feds, which trickles down to the people through the banks and Wall Street. Wall Street is a centralized market with all trades tightly regulated. We proponents of the free market attempt to argue finance, the left is able to project all of the faults of the financial system on the free market.

The free market is about free minds defining values and pursuing aspirations.

Deregulating a top-heavy captured financial system does not lead to a free market. It leads to a top-heavy society dominated by its worst elements.

A large number of the devices in our financial markets were designed by progressives to regulate the market. Insurance, short selling, derivatives, CDOs, Mortgage Backed Securities, hedge funds, etc., were created for the expressed purpose of regulating the economy.

Since so many financial tools were designed to regulate, financial deregulation involves deregulating regulators ... which is a formula for disaster.

We see this clearly with the Commodities Future Modernization Act of 2000 signed by William Jefferson Clinton. (If floored me to see Clinton blaming Bush for a bill that he signed!) The dervivatives created by this act were designed to create a regulated market. The belief was that the complex derivatives would be self regulating. When William Jefferson Clinton created the dervatives that crashed the economy, William Jefferson Clinton believed that he was creating a self-regulating regulatory regime.

Conservatives keep being duped into thinking that the financial system is the free market. IT IS NOT.

To restore the free market we have to start creating financial tools that empower individuals from the ground up. The Medical Savings and Loan is such a system. It empowers people by giving people direct control over the first block of their health care.

Rather than talking about tax cuts, Republcans would be wise to look for tax reform that gives people greater control over their finances. For example, in our current system, employers do the bulk of the accounting for their employers. Republicans should define a new tax system such as the Object Tax. This is an account based tax in which your entire paycheck is deposited into an account. You pay your tax to withdraw your money. Such a system gives individuals greater control over their money and taxes.

Unfortunately, as long as we play the game in which we allow the enemies of freedom define the terms of the debate, we will continue to see our precious freedoms diminish.

The American experiment in self rule held the individual in high esteem. In this experiment our forefathers discovered that a community with strong individuals is a strong community. The left seeks to destroy the experiment in self rule by ridiculing a straw-man. Unfortunately, since conservatives are reactionary idiots, the left is able to get away with game.

Wednesday, September 05, 2012

Clinton Attacks a Strawman

Bill Clinton made a tedious attack on a strawman during the Democratic National Convention.

The theory of a free market is not about "self-made-men" living in isolation. A market is a community. The free market is about free people who have property rights engaging with the world at large.

A key element of the founder's vision is freedom of association. The free market allows people to own things and choose their associations. A free market is not about isolation.

Communitarians are the ones who seek to impose social controls and associations. Communitarians are the ones who drive out the people who do not conform to the norms of the community. Yes, communitarians love when people gather in the square to admire the virtues of the glorious leader, but that is not much of a community.

The founders sought freedom and discovered a great secret. They discovered that strong individuals make up strong communities.

Conversely, people who start to create strong communities often create top-heavy oppressive communities.

The free market starts with property owning individuals engaged in a market (the community).

Sadly, I fear Clinton's criticism of Mitt Romney may be right. Mitt Romney career jumping from big government to big finance to big business indicates that he might have top-down vision of the free market.

Such a vision might be called "financialism." This is where politically connected players take out huge financial positions with the aim of dominating a market.

For example, The Sports Authority was designed as a vehicle for Kmart to move into the sporting goods sector. Through rapid acquisition the store dominates the market. (Acquisitions include Garts, Oshman's, Sportscastle, Sportmart, Copeland's, etc.).

This game is one where politically connected investors seek to dominate a market or perish. Such competition leads to a world where most perish and the winner takes all.

Effects of Projection

Throughout my entire life, the left has been projecting the false image that the free market is a top down world with business warriors engaged in a blood sport of dominate-or-perish. The game is winner take all with entire markets quickly dominated by just a few tycoons.

I hate the game of projection. One of the effects of projection is that people often become the image projected on them.

The free market is an inherently bottom up affair. A free market is a community-center system in which property owning individuals seek ways to maximize the return their property by associating with others in the market.

The top down approach of "financialism" is diametrically opposed to the free market.

I wanted to write a post that said: "Clinton attacks strawman and finds straw." Unfortunately, since Republicans foolishly nominated a Robber Barron who plays game of the business warrior, I am left with the complex task of explaining that the top heavy economic vision of Bain Capital is not a free market.

Sadly, I think the best hope for America is for people to realize that both parties are corrupt and vote third party.

Tuesday, September 04, 2012

Free Market v. Capitalism

"Property" means say so. Property Rights means that individuals have say so over an equity such as a piece of land, a shop.

The most important of all property rights is the right to our minds and bodies. The conversation about property rights died down after the US Revolution as plantation owners sought to conserve slavery.

The Free Market as seen by the US Founders and Adam Smith was a vision with widespread ownership. Individuals owned companies that they built.

Capitalism is a dystopia conceived by Karl Marx and detailed in Das Kapital. The Capitalism, the ruling class abstract off capital ownership in to large pools that corporate warriors use to dominate markets. This reduces people from the role of capital owner to being servants to the large capital pool.

When the capital is controlled by large capital firms, the people begin to diminish. Marx sought to raise these people in revolution with a mistaken belief that the revolution would lead to utopia on earth.

Marx was cunning. Marx read Machiavelli and Sun Tsu. He knew that, in the Art of War, the group that defines the battlefield wins the war.

FYI, if you are a business warrior who believes in using large capital pools and the Art of War to dominate markets, then you are a disciple of Marx's vision written in Das Kapital.

Marx knew that he could not argue directly for communism, so he snookered a group of half-wits called "conservatives" in to going out and arguing for Capitalism, when he convinced another group of nitwits to rebel against his capitalists.

Marx called his game Material Dialectics. In this game, the intellectual defines both sides of a contrived conflict. Pits them against each other in conflict, then reaps the whirlwind.

Imbeciles like Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity will make loud screeching noises to defend Marx's vision outlined in Das Kapital without ever realizing that they are the one's setting up our nation for failure. In response, half wits on the left form Occupy Wall Street with the call for revolution.

Karl Marx deserves acclaim as the most influential economist of all time. Karl Marx is the father of both Capitalism and Communism. He is the father of a great conflict that took hundreds of millions of lives and that continues to wreak havoc in our lives.

Today, we have a financial system which was captured by large capital pools set to dominate markets. Americans are systematically being reduced from property owners to mere employees. We have a financial system captured by insiders and set on restoring a class society with a distinct ownership class and working class.

Sadly, Bain Capital is an important issue during the election. It is a company built on the formula in which large capital pools seek to dominate markets. For example Sports Authority partnered with KMart to make one huge sporting goods store that could dominate the market. It sucked up all the regional chains like Garts and now we have a dominated market with little opportunity for outsiders.

Our financial system was built on the Marxian fantasy of business warriors using massive capital pools to dominate the market.

The American Experiment in self rule hinged on the concept of individuals as owners. A society in which people are just employees who will never own anything of significance will diminish ... or, as Marx hoped when he fathered Capitalism, erupt into revolution.

Romney's business career and political campaign indicates that he bought into the vision of Das Kapital in which business warriors use a captured financial system to dominate markets and reduce the people to workers owned by the capital pools.

Property rights were the key to the American vision of self-rule. With widespread property ownership, people would have little domains that they could grow an nurture. The sad fact that the right bought into Marx's definition of Capitalism is as much a threat to this experiment as the fact that the left bought into Marx's idea of revolution against capitalism.

My hope at this point is that American wakes up to the fact that both sides of the left/right split are corrupt and vote third party in November.

Saturday, September 01, 2012

Modern Liberals and Modern Conservatives

I need to recap the posts on the Hegelian Right and Left.

The Left/Right split which dominates modern politics did not come from the US Revolution.

Contrary to what the GOP claims, Modern Conservatism does not trace to the revolution. It traces to the royalist reaction to the revolution.

The Modern Liberal movement is even more ugly. It traces to efforts to make the royalist position look progressive.

The Constitution did not anticipate the two party system. The founders despised the factions they saw in European government.

In the post called The Pendulum Swing, I argued that the two party system has created a mechanism that systematically clamps down on individual liberty. Both parties play the game in which they use freedom rhetoric when they are out of power, but clamp down when they are in power.

Since that post, we saw the Republican Party encourage the rise of the Tea Party after the Democratic win in 2008. They are now muzzling and silencing the patriots of the Tea Party.

After the Democrats lost in 2010, the Democrats responded by creating the Occupy Wall Street movement which used their paradoxical freedom message.

To actually achieve a restoration of the American Experiment in self rule, Americans need to realize that the party system is the problem.

The left/right split came from the French Revolution. The left wanted radical social change and the right wanted to preserve the social order and custom of the ancient regime. Both were corrupt.

The logic of the two party system that emerged in the early 1800s is exemplified by the royalist Hegel. (I know, I know, Hegel was German. How could Germans be influential in defining the royalist position??? Unless, of course, the Hanoverian Kings of England were from, say, Hanover.)

The Founders of the United States were a great generation. The generations that followed were pathetic in comparison. Partisan intellectuals sought to frame the revolution to their advantage. The slave owners sought to preserve the institution of slavery.

The whole mess of corrupt thought from 1800-1860 led to the Civil War.

The problem is that the generation following the founders was the generation that wrote the history books.

The enemies of freedom have created traps that continue to undermine the freedom movement. People who are sincere in their desire to restore the concept of self rule must watch for the trips, else we will continue along the path to servitude.