On Hong Kong and Protestors – What Should the U.S. Do?

The U.S. could simply issue a statement:

“The U.S. believes a nations’ primary, if not sole responsibility, is protecting the individual liberty of its citizens. We do not condone actions by governments that violate their citizens’ liberty, nor do we support populist democracy movements whose goal is to seize power only to swap the government with a different set of violations of individual liberty.

We hope those involved in the current problems in Hong Kong consider their ultimate goals in terms of human rights: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We denounce any and all efforts by any party that are contrary to that sentiment.”

It would be a lie, though, because most all in the U.S. Government don’t believe this in any way whatsoever.

Progressive sounbites only work as soundbites

I’m no republican, but found a post out on politico to to be the usual lame, twisted caricature of anyone against progressive authoritarianism.

The post was a bunch of soundbites directed at the GOP — but applicable to us all, so let’s address. each   Unfortunately, smugness can be one liners, but explanations require detail, so excuse the length.

Let the caricatures begin.

***

The (GOP folks, but you can insert anyone who disagrees with progressives policy here) all…:

“Admire the American farmer but are willing to help him go broke.

Actually, plenty of R’s are big into subsidies for their own states, so this ain’t so accurate. But on farm subsidies, let’s get this straight. U.S. policy on farms is an economic catastrophe, paying people to overproduce some crops, fighting tobacco at one level, while granting subsidies to farm it at others (recall, Dear Leader Al Gore is a gentlemen farmer who benefits); forcing consumers to overpay for some crops, exporting overproduction of others, even giving it away into the 3rd-world, which undermines developing economy markets for agriculture; then we get stupid things like the “ethanol mandate” that is actually worse for the environment and caused economic problems due to the subsidy chasing going on, etc. Then there is the Mosanto protection racket BS that’s all part of the same mechanism.

So, go ahead with the smug one liner and mock others who find this all distasteful as “being against the lil ol’ farmer”. I call BS.

Stand four-square for the American home but not for housing.

Because the housing bubble had nothing to do with massive intervention in the housing market at both the Congressional level or at the monetary policy level from the Fed and our twisted banking cartel system Nor did mandating that people who cannot afford homes should still be qualified for mortgages they don’t have the incomes for is a good thing. Nor did enabling an incompetent bureaucracy filled with political appointees hired expressly to make sure everyone got a mortgage, providing a defacto guarantee on all mortgages (Freddie and Fannie) have anything to do with it.

Yes – being against such short term, feel good lunacy (that buys votes, no doubt) is against “the people”. Dream on.

Are strong for labor but stronger for restricting labor’s rights.

Last I checked, the politically connected are for this.

Certainly big business does not like labor fluidity because they want to have workers stuck who can’t find jobs. Hence, big business is always at the forefront of writing regulation “to protect the people” which always, the shock of all shocks, coincidentally adds tremendous hurdles to entrepreneurial activity that would undermine market positions of the politically connected, which would equal their best employees jumping ship for the opportunity to excel / get paid more / enjoy the profits of creating something more consumer effective at a new job.

But are unions here to save us? Heck NO! They want to carve out their own monopoly on labor at the expense of the consumer who must pay more for the same or (as has been the repeated the case in experience) lower quality product. They don’t want labor fluidity — entrepreneurial job seekers moving around undermining their monopolies in certain industries, so they legislate against freedom of choice for labor.

So you try to make it sound that cutting back on Unionized labor’s monopoly to push others around and prevent freedom of choice is a bad thing?

No wonder unions are so isolated, and progressives so out of touch. Unions are not a solution. They doubled down on the problem of corporatism.

PS – if we all became union, there would be no benefit since everyone’s wages would adjust, and costs would universally go up, and the fraud would be exposed completely.

Favor the minimum wage. The smaller the better.

Nope. Wrong again. Anyone with economic sense understands price fixing of anything creates market distortions and affects prices in other areas. A forced above market minimum wage prices unskilled labor out of the market by putting it at a price above its actual economic output. Unfettered wages are a product of supply and demand of skill sets. To pretend that entry level burger flippers are worth more than they are merely encourages employers to seek alternatives — they fast forward investment into job eliminating machinery, off-shoring, etc. Or they pay a more skilled person with higher output. Does not happen overnight, but such is integrated.

Min wages, however, immediately force consumer to pay more / subsidize the extra wage as prices must go up to account for the increase in labor cost inputs. So they have less disposable income afterward / are poorer for it, as are all the folks who used to get that spending now cut off. Moreover, because min wage is tied to union wage scales, union wages go up (a big secret reason for minimum wage support), further increasing consumer subsidies to protected workers, and hurting those who were part of the previous consumption chain now with less $$ thanks to the new law.

Yes, some will benefit. But this is like me taking money from one person to give it to another. That is good for buying votes, but it is poor economic policy in the long run. Robbing Peter to pay Paul has always been folly, but not to the economically illiterate and desperate voter min wage advocates prey upon.

Endorse equal educational opportunities for all but won’t pay for teachers or schools.

How about teachers getting paid for their quality in an open market exchange of education alternatives?

Oh, I get it. You only want UNION-Government monopolized education, run by politicians for the benefit of the politically connected –e.g. The Education Industrial complex (testing, text books, etc.) and unions. So they can charge $550k per 35 kid classroom which is a typical big union / city run school district cost. ($15k per kid is average, but I’ve seen some cities as high as $18,400 like union heavy City of Pittsburgh).

When you actually put consumer choice choosing and defining quality — rather than unions or twisted politicians — as the chief priority, we can discuss funding education, and perhaps the best charitable method for educating those who cannot afford education vs. pure entitlements.

Think our medical care and hospitals are fine – for people who can afford them.

A system ruined by 75 years + of incremental government intervention, a system of legislated oligopolies and corporatism run rough shod over consumer choice and freedom.

A system that further guarantees that no matter how badly you take care of your body you’re supposed to be entitled to whatever care is necessary to bail you out?

yeah… And Obama-care triples down on that lunacy as a solution?

Let the market do its thing with freedom, and let’s carve out the discussion of handling the charitable needs of those who can’t afford it.

Consider electrical power a great blessing as long as private power companies get their rake-off.

LOL. Government created oligopolies (utilities) are indeed a problem. Of big government politicians killing liberty / choice.

Think the American standard of living is a fine thing as long as it does not spread to all the people.

Oh, I see — 80-years of increased redistributionism and expansionary monetary policy are not to blame for the existing economic malaise.

We’ve been raiding the economic seed-corn of wealth creators who improve the standard of living in this nation and redistributing it for political purposes through both govt. meddling and through Bank Cartel / Fed policy (fractional reserve multiplier effect, etc.). And we do so more and more each year. And now that harvests are coming in leaner and leaner, suggesting famine is on the horizon, your solution is to raid more seed corn?

We were warned extensively of this happening by sound economic folks back when this started and exactly what they warned of (more bubbles of increased volatility, wars financed on debt and money priting, etc.) has come to be.

But keep supporting the same looters, and blame those who want to end it as the problem.

Admire the United States government so much that they want to buy it.”

 

Harry Truman (funny how some things don’t change)

Blah blah blah.

To David Horowtiz: Is Communism or Authoritarianism the Real Problem

I just read an article over at Breitbart discussing David Horowitz’s recent comments at a Heritage Foundation function where he, in no uncertain terms, labeled the entire Democrat Party a bunch of “communists”.

“My parents called themselves progressives,” Horowitz explained with regard to his communist parents. “The agenda was a Soviet America…the slogan of the communist party in those days was peace, jobs, democracy. Sound familiar?”

He continued:

“The communist party is the Democratic Party.”

Having watched Horowitz come out of the closet as a conservative in the early 1990s, I found Horowitz’s positioning and timing interesting.  The Heritage Foundation is influential among many conservatives who cling onto the GOP because they continue to believe that it somehow will throw them more than bones when it comes to liberty.  And, here we find many democrats and independents joining republicans in questioning the whole idea of Obamacare, with many critics of Obama using the “communism” and “socialism” to describe what Obama and D’s really want / intend.

I also found it to be a GOP-centric attempt at focusing Republicans on a legitimate foe, while avoiding the real issue at hand when it comes to communism.

Lets be clear: You or I really would not care one ounce about communism if communists just went off and bought some property on their own someplace in order to create a voluntary communist enclave that is populated by those who voluntarily choose to join and remain part of such a commune, while leaving the rest of us alone.

The problem is, most all communists want to foist their ideology on the rest of us without giving us a choice in the matter. THAT is the problem with communism, but for the few on the fringe who simply joined communes and were done with it: It is inherently authoritarian. (Authoritarian meaning “The State has the Authority to Do as It Pleases regardless of individual liberty / consent”, keeping in mind that democracy can be fully authoritarian at the expense of minorities.)

That said, I don’t care about communism per say, but I do care about the means people choose to implement it.

That in mind, we need to run ALL politicians through the lens of individual LIBERTY. There we quickly discover that Communism itself is not a danger, but rather AUTHORITARIAN communism (albeit a redundant phrase in practice, since 99.5% of communists wish to force their fellow humans into their ideology, even if it means nearly 100 million deaths, as we have previously witnessed in the 20th century).

In other words, we would have rooted-out / exposed Obama’s true problem — he’s an authoritarian at heart – and not gotten gummed up in the debate over if he’s a communist (socialist, etc) or not, a debate many still find themselves sucked into today.

That said, when we use the Lens of INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY, we can most assuredly discover that all progressives and most all democrats a quasi-authoritarian to full-blown authoritarian types, believing that, while some liberty should be protected,  Government should ultimately decide and may, when convenient, void whatever liberties it so chooses — ala, once again, Obamacare.    (Notice now how the whole “is Obamacare Socialist or not” debate similarly distracts from the real point: We’re all chained to it!)

However, we also discover the hypocrisy of many of those who shout loudly about the bogeyman of communism. While they have fingered a dangerous foe, they often promote a different, authoritarian-method-enforced philosophy or set of priorities which is similarly dismissive or dangerous to Individual liberty. In this we find most all progressives and a ton of liberty-lip-service GOPers.

What we will find, if we are honest and not hypocritical, is that most elections argue over various shades of authoritarian behaviors laundered through the ballot box,