Contractors had lifted the vehicle and painted under it, before carefully replacing it. Later that same day, traffic wardens spotted the “illegally parked” car and ordered it to be towed away.

Click to read the remainder of this article

Papers please! Prayer permits are available for $15,940. Indiscreet photographers, and other suspicious characters, will be added to our watch list, or detained. Pro-lifers, anti-illegal immigrant advocates, tax protestors, gun rights advocates, and third party voters are considered potential terrorists. Please report to us, or to one of our citizen informants, any suspicious activity. We will log and listen in to your calls, record your e-mail, analyze your social networks, and track other forms of communication, as well as financial transactions and travel. Suspected individuals may be detained indefinitely without trial, and tortured for information. If we require information of you, you must provide it secretly. If you inform anyone of our request you will be imprisoned.

I believe there is right and wrong. Morality is not relative, or based only on utility, and is not an unimportant relic of evolution, but is actually the definition of right behavior, which applies to everyone. I personally believe that God is the source of morality, but if one is to accept my premise, one must at least believe that there is such a thing as right and wrong. If one is a moral relativist, for example, one can hardly reason on the basis of morality.

Furthermore, I ascribe to a traditional definition of these rules — most notably, to murder, to steal, or to enslave is immoral. I believe that in general, to initiate violence against another person is immoral. This includes violence against a person (murder), as well as property (theft). To put it another way, the only violence that can possibly justified is used in self defense, or in defense of innocents.

Now, I believe that these rules apply to everyone. They are universal. Moreover, I believe that an action cannot be made moral if one acts through a proxy. For example, if I do not steal from my neighbor, but I have you do it for me, your action of theft is immoral, and my action in supporting theft is also immoral. That is, I cannot convey to you the moral right to act in a way which would be an immoral act for myself. This is true whether the act be commissioned by one person, or any number of persons. Even if your whole apartment block gets together to hire someone to steal from you in 126G, it is still immoral theft by the person committing the action, and immoral support for theft by your apartment block. Think carefully about this, because mainstream political thought diverges here.

If one is to disagree with this premise, I think one must justify the disagreement. Why would an immoral act, when committed individually, become moral when committed by many? If morality is above man, why should it not be above groups of men? If it is immoral for me to steal, why should the rule not apply when my whole apartment block has conspired to commit theft?

If one accepts the idea that there is no special exception for groups, one sees the immorality of government coercion. What right has the government to forcibly take nearly 50% of what one has produced, at the threat of being locked in a cage? It is irrelevant that a majority may support the action, and it is irrelevant that the resources may be put to a good purpose — just as, if a majority of people in your apartment block voted to break into your apartment, take your money, and use it to feed the poor, the action would still be immoral. We should feed the poor, and I believe we have a moral obligation to help those in need. But when, instead of reaching into my own pocket to do so, I reach into yours, I have crossed an important line.

Just as using the threat of violence to force someone to take a moral financial action (like feeding the poor) is immoral, using the threat of violence to force someone into personal morality is also immoral. It is wrong to gossip, it is wrong to eat gluttonously, and it is wrong to covet. Yet to hold a gun to someone’s head in order to make them obey these moral laws would be to break the moral code oneself. The enforcer of the moral code is God (or if one prefers, whatever force or law authors the moral code). It is certainly not ourselves. Most people agree with the idea that acting violently against someone, or locking them in a cage if they refuse to stop gossiping would be wrong. But consider that this means there is no justification for putting someone in a cage in response to an action by them which is not violent. If only self defense is justified, the implications are significant.

In general, then, this approach means that instead of attempting to force moral action by threat of violence, we need to take moral action ourselves, and encourage moral action in others. When someone acts in a self damaging manner, the proper response is to try to help them using one’s own resources. If one is a Christian, this also means through prayer and the Church. When one is attempting to promote a new social program or charity, the proper approach is to support it oneself, and encourage others to do so — never to force others to support it at the point of a gun. Even funding for police, for example, should then be voluntary. I have a right to hire people to protect myself, but what right do I have to force you to pay for it?

What would a government look like under such a system, then? Well, I think services would be a lot more targeted to what people really need. Furthermore, there could be a policy that coverage is free of charge for the truly poor, who cannot afford to pay. Most would pay for fire service, and to have access to roads. Some programs could be bundled together, like police protection with court and prison funding. Some government programs become more doubtful. Would you personally donate your money to send as foreign aid to a military dictator in Pakistan, as aid to the government of Saudi Arabia, or to engage in nation building overseas? I would not. I would probably give more of my money to feed the poor, and somewhat less to farm subsidies. After all, if not enough people are willing to fund a program, perhaps it should end, or be scaled back.

In the end, one must ask oneself this: “I know that my cause is worthy, but is it worth sticking a gun in someone’s face, and demanding that they support it, lest I throw them in a cage?” Because euphemisms aside, that is exactly what government is. If an action is not moral for you, and it is not moral for your apartment block, it is not moral for your country. In other words, if you would not personally coerce your neighbor, and you would not get your friends together to do it, why would you consider it right to employ the government to that end?

I know there is much more to delve into here, and I look forward to continuing the discussion in the comments.

Regards

-pkb

pkb

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Presentation on current financial crisis:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=XBT052jHnmE

–Solid points, and well researched. I do disagree with his brief statement on the reason for the Iraq invasion.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peter Schiff points out problems in 2006, gets laughed at (seriously priceless — you think peter got the penny?):
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=LfascZSTU4o
And again (there are many more examples of this):
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=W8LlJceLSxI

Schiff on Glen Beck yesterday, focus on debt:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=YH-D6E9vK9s
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
IOUSA trailer:
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=iousa+trailer&hl=en&emb=0&aq=f#
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Comptroller general on 60 Minutes — our irresponsible spending practices:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=OS2fI2p9iVs
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ron Paul cross examining Bernanke:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=A4kxTkhwR_Q
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Alan Greenspan thinks we were better off on the gold standard, implies no fed would be preferable:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=z5MVsm2cpc0

Early Greenspan piece opposing government intervention and manipulation of the money supply
http://www.constitution.org/mon/greenspan_gold.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bernanke admits the Fed caused the great depression, or at least made it much worse than it needed to be:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/BOARDDOCS/SPEECHES/2002/20021108/default.htm

Money quote:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
History of money in the U.S:
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=history+of+money+us&hl=en&emb=0&aq=f#

–Good stuff, although I don’t think it’s feasible to return to the gold standard, since government reserves of gold and silver are mostly depleted — that genie has left the bottle. I’m in favor of monetary freedom, however. Eliminate “legal tender” laws, and simply allow people to use what money they choose.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Money as debt:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9050474362583451279

–Good explanation of our jacked up banking system, and good eye opener. Fun tidbit from the NY Fed’s own site, admitting that money creation is effectively unhindered by reserve requirements (and I quote — bold is mine):

Reserve Requirements and Money Creation
Reserve requirements affect the potential of the banking system to create transaction deposits. If the reserve requirement is 10%, for example, a bank that receives a $100 deposit may lend out $90 of that deposit. If the borrower then writes a check to someone who deposits the $90, the bank receiving that deposit can lend out $81. As the process continues, the banking system can expand the initial deposit of $100 into a maximum of $1,000 of money ($100+$90+81+$72.90+…=$1,000). In contrast, with a 20% reserve requirement, the banking system would be able to expand the initial $100 deposit into a maximum of $500 ($100+$80+$64+$51.20+…=$500). Thus, higher reserve requirements should result in reduced money creation and, in turn, in reduced economic activity.

In practice, the connection between reserve requirements and money creation is not nearly as strong as the exercise above would suggest. Reserve requirements apply only to transaction accounts, which are components of M1, a narrowly defined measure of money. Deposits that are components of M2 and M3 (but not M1), such as savings accounts and time deposits, have no reserve requirements and therefore can expand without regard to reserve levels. Furthermore, the Federal Reserve operates in a way that permits banks to acquire the reserves they need to meet their requirements from the money market, so long as they are willing to pay the prevailing price (the federal funds rate) for borrowed reserves. Consequently, reserve requirements currently play a relatively limited role in money creation in the United States.

Edit: Note, I have been unable to verify the first 10X money expansion factor (referred to in the video) regarding deposits at the Fed, so you may want to take that with a grain of salt. The second 10X factor due to re-lending of money with a 10% reserve requirement is certainly correct. As the above quote points out, however, these reserve requirements do not effectively put a limit on money creation.

There is another point which I believe to be a misconception in the video — greater production does not necessarily imply greater use of natural resources. Things of greater or lesser value can be made from the same natural resources.

Also, I strongly disagree with the conclusions of the video that suggest more socialization is a solution. What we need is more freedom, — the problems of a fixed money supply would be solved by simply eliminating legal tender laws.

All the quotes used in the video are verifiable.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Very funny Australian satire on the (their) fed:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=NIfH0vY2ANA
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Comic book entitled, “how an economy grows and why it does not”:

http://freedom-school.com/money/how-an-economy-grows.pdf

I disagree with a poll tax, but otherwise good stuff.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Comic book explaining (and satirizing) inflation:

http://www.constitution.org/tax/us-ic/schiff/moltz.pdf
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Great political cartoon (scroll down a little):

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2008/10/essence-of-rescue-plan-in-comic-form.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here’s a few quotes to consider:

Regarding federal banking and money supply:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a moneyed aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.”
- Thomas Jefferson (Abolished the first national bank)

“The bold effort the present bank had made to control the Government, the distress it had wantonly produced … are but premonitions of the fate that awaits the American people should they be deluded into a perpetuation of this institution, or the establishment of another like it.”
- Andrew Jackson (Abolished the second national bank — Engraved on his tombstone: “I killed the bank!”)

“This [Federal Reserve Act] establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President [Wilson} signs this bill, the invisible government of the monetary power will be legalized....the worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking and currency bill."

- Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr. , 1913

"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws"
- Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild

"Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce."

- James A. Garfield, President of the United States

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency, first byinflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."
- Thomas Jefferson

"The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, and more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces as public enemies, all who question it's methods or throw light upon it's crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the Bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe.. corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money powers of the country will endeavor to prolong it's reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in the hands of a few, and the Republic is destroyed.
- Abraham Lincoln

A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world. No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."
- Woodrow Wilson (Instituted third national bank -- Federal Reserve)

"It is well that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning." - Henry Ford

"Most Americans have no real understanding of the operation of the international money lenders. The accounts of the Federal Reserve System have never been audited. It operates outside the control of Congress and manipulates the credit of the United States"
- Sen. Barry Goldwater (Rep. AR)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On government spending and debt:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

No pecuniary consideration is more urgent, than the regular redemption and discharge of the public debt: on none can delay be more injurious, or an economy of time more valuable.
- George Washington

"I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member on this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money."
- Colonel David Crockett (1786-1836)       Frontiersman & Congressman:

"The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection."
- John Stuart Mill

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare but only those specifically enumerated."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"[T]he powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its
jurisdiction.”
- James Madison, Speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention [June 6, 1788]

When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.
- Benjamin Franklin

“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”
- Thomas Jefferson

“I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity. [To approve the measure] would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded.”
- President Franklin Pierce

“We still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping at the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised to furnish new pretenses for revenue and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without a tribute.”
- Thomas Paine

I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.
-James Madison

Today, if you have managed to avoid the cavalcade of news organizations breathlessly bringing you the latest in election entertainment, you may not be aware that the Obama (a.k.a. bringer of change) stated, regarding McCain’s claim to also bring change, that “You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig”. This caused a major brouhaha, because you see Rep. V.P. nominee Palin had recently joked that the only difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull was, “lipstick”. So, you see, Obama’s comment could possibly be considered an insult to her, prompting McCain to gleefully release an ad accusing Obama of just that (it can still be seen on his website), and sexism to boot. Of course, he quoted one Katie Couric speaking on the subject of Hillary Clinton to do so, causing CBS to throw a major fit and get the ad pulled from everywhere it could. Ah, another day on the campaign trail.

In prior news cycles we got to hear about Palin’s pregnant daughter and her husband-to-be, the curtailing of the Republican Convention, Greek pillars for the Obama speech, the spurning of Hillary for VP, John Edwards’ indiscretions, and more. Of course, ratings are king, and you can’t do everything, so after our political gossip, there’s not really much time to inform voters on substantive issues …

Mainstream political commentary is even less useful than the news. Instead of discussing the merits and faults of the candidates’ various stances, we have a “meta” political discussion. The question is not, “Who should you support?” but, “How will the candidates try to sway the voters, and will it work?”

This CNN interchange is a typical example:

CROWLEY: I talked to a Democratic elected official today, and he said, my heavens, the poll numbers for Republicans and President Bush are below freezing. Everybody hates the Iraq war, the economy is a mess, and we’re tied.

And they think part of the problem is, they do want him to hit back. They want him to be tougher. Remember, during the primary, when Hillary Clinton kept saying, I have been tested, I understand what’s coming at me, you need someone like me?

BROWN: Right.

CROWLEY: Well, this is what they have feared. This is what Democrats now say, he just needs to get out there and start slugging.

Anyone who watches any amount of network news will recognize this style of dialogue immediately — it is the dominant form of televised political discourse today. But no mention of the candidates’ respective plans, philosophies, or budgets – nothing that could be remotely useful to a voter trying to make an informed decision, and nothing to educate a in many ways woefully politically ignorant populace.

There is another type of commentary that matches this form — sports. John Madden does not compare the relative merits of Colts vs. Patriots fandom, because people have already made up their minds. All they want to hear is, “Brady dodges left, dumps off to Welker”, and “Will the Patriots be able to continue to use their screen pass effectively against San Diego?”. Similarly, the punditry gives the people what they want, “Clinton dodges the question, accuses the Obama team of inexperience.” and “Will McCain be able to use the same attack in November?”

The fact is that the political process has become largely disconnected from ideas. We play red team against blue, without really taking a step back and considering issues and ideas honesty. Often we even bend our views and morality to root for our team — “XYZ strategy is ok, because it’s being used to beat the bad guys”.

The fact is, the parties don’t actually differ that much. Republicans proclaim themselves to be for “small government”, but the facts just don’t fit the rhetoric. Bush has increased even non-defense discretionary spending by a whopping inflation adjusted 30% since he’s been in office (more than Clinton and Carter combined), including more than doubling the size of the department of education, and not including trillions in added unfunded liabilities for the prescription drug benefit. When Bush took office, total expenditures were 1.8 trillion. In 2007, they were 2.7 trillion.

Similarly, the democrats currently position themselves as the “peace party”, but Obama does not differ substantially with McCain on foreign policy. Both advocate a “time table” of sorts for Iraq, neither think we should extricate ourselves from the over 130 countries in which we have troops, and both use aggressive rhetoric towards Russia and Iran. Clinton embargoed Hati, occupied Somolia, and bombed Bosnia, Iraq, and Serbia. It was LBJ that began the war in Vietnam.

Neither party wants to seriously discuss monetary policy. Neither dares address Soc. Security or Medicare crises, or trade deficits, or has a plan to significantly reduce our national debt. Neither proposes serious reform of the tax system or of the federal reserve. Both support an interventionist foreign policy, and intervention into the economy. Neither wants to seriously shrink the size of government, addresses the recent erosion of civil liberties, or proposes to protect privacy. Even in those hot button areas like abortion, where real differences purportedly exist, little ever gets done. The democrats and republicans continue to milk them for votes, election after election, but almost nothing actually changes.

But who cares! Draw up a chair, pass the popcorn, and pick a team if you like. Kickoff was last week, and no one puts on a better show.

-pkb