Posts

Christmas Thoughts and Libertarian Ideals

If you believe in small government (and small business), how do you defend those ideals when confronted with arguments that "government is necessary" to help those in need? (Put aside the idiotic "needs" from cell phones to high-speed Internet connections now supported by government.) Here's my answer: Do something for your community. If you don't want activist government, you need to support charitable non-governmental organizations. Unless you give time, energy, resources, and money, to various causes, then progressives are going to have a more valid argument that government is the preferred charity. My success in life is possible only because other people voluntarily helped me achieve more. The list of supporters is long, beginning, with my parents, grandparents, and extended family. My wife, my in-laws, and many friends also helped me along the way. Then there are the strangers who donated to the universities I attended, making scholarships possib...

Unintended Consequences: Ending Filibuster Creates Tyranny of the Minority

Image
United States Senate Seal (Photo credit: DonkeyHotey ) "Senator Kaine espousing the radical, radical notion of majority rule. That is now on tape, sir," Chris Hayes said Thursday night (21 Nov 2013). And he couldn't be more wrong. In theory, the GOP could control the Senate with members elected from states representing less than 25 percent of the nation. The math is simple: win lots of small, rural states, and you have a majority in the Senate, while needing only a minority of American voters.  Can Chris Hayes and numerous other pundits (and politicians) be so dense as to not recognize that a minority of voters nationally, but representing majorities in small aging states, could elect a GOP majority in the Senate? And no, this isn't some gerrymandering trick, since Senators are elected state-wide. It's simply a fact that the rural states could dictate policy for the majority… within two or three election cycles. [See the MSNBC clip at: A ...

Thinkers in Disagreement: Admitting Flaws (and Worse)

Image
English: Murray Rothbard in the 90's (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) One of the questions I've been asked is how I can reconcile drawing bits and pieces of my personal views on economics and politics from individuals with disagreements. The answer is simple: we each create a personal philosophy drawing from experiences and those thoughts to which we are exposed. We embrace some ideas and reject others, even the ideas of someone we admire. Some of the ideas and views expressed by thinkers I admire deserve to be rejected — that's true in economics, philosophy, and other disciplines. I lean towards Austrian economic theories, but not without skepticism. A name that comes up when I mention Austrian economics is Murray Rothbard . He's dismissed in the same way some dismiss Ayn Rand . (Rothbard quickly rejected Rand as a "cult" leader.) "Rothbard was a fascist, racist, conservative." I'm paraphrasing, but that's the charge against him. ...

Backlog of Topics

People have asked why this blog isn't more active — after all, there isn't a lack of important fiscal and cultural topics to address. I do have a dozen or so posts started, but not finished, and even more ideas on my "to-do" list. The challenge has been time, as it often is. A quick rundown of topics I still hope to address: The Republican Party and Democratic Party repulse me. They each want to control my life, just in different ways. Neither represents freedom. They vilify each other, without understanding the value of compromise and leaving us alone. The government shutdown was stupid. I've written before that we shouldn't have a "debt ceiling." It was an idiotic idea to solve a real problem: Congress can't seem to control itself. The debt ceiling is a "Stop me before I spend again!" plea for help… from one Congressional cohort to the next. The real solution? Pass annual appropriations on schedule, via regular order. Democ...

Robert J. Samuelson: The Minimum Wage Muddle

Image
I dislike the notion of a "minimum wage" but recognize that it isn't about to be abolished. And, there is the sad reality that many companies don't recognize that employees are the value behind any business or non-profit. Organizations are their people. My first problem with the national minimum wage is that any nationwide standard ignores the cost of living variations from region to region. Beyond that, we have issues of how to set a minimum wage, how to index it to inflation, and many other complicated issues. If you set rates by region, would you also have regional inflation indices? What about tiered minimums, based on age or other variables? There are already odd exemptions to the minimum wage, namely in the dining industry. Should there be a full-time minimum wage apart from a part-time minimum? How many people working 40-hour weeks earn the minimum wage? If they do earn the minimum, for how long do they earn this before their first raises? How long before...

Rhetorical Economist, Economics Rhetorician

Image
English: Image of Deirdre McCloskey "for Public Use" as stated on her website http://www.deirdremccloskey.org/main/pr.php (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) Deirdre McCloskey  might be the "rhetorician" I've most enjoyed reading. She's decidedly libertarian, often addressing the supposed "moral failings" of the philosophy. Though her degrees are in economics (Harvard grad, but we forgive her), she understands rhetoric better than many elite professors in that discipline. Her dry wit alone makes her books worth the time to read. If I could suggest some books, as I do for my students: McCloskey, Deirdre N.  If You're So Smart: The Narrative of Economic Expertise . Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990. (ISBN: 0226556719) McCloskey, Deirdre N.  The Rhetoric of Economics (Rhetoric of the Human Sciences) . Madison, Wis.: University of Wisconsin Press, 1998. (ISBN: 0299158144) and… McCloskey, Deirdre N. Economical Writing. Long Grove, ...

Hating Capitalism… Because It's Easy to Hate?

Image
The following was posted to the comments section of a very old blog post: The Top Ten Reasons I Hate Capitalism: 10: Kim Kardashian 9: Vast economic inequality destroys democracy 8: Survival of the fittest (I'm definitely not among the fittest) 7: Donald Trump 6: The Attitude of the Fittest toward the Unfit 5: Reality TV 4: Walmart 3: Mark Zuckerberg 2: It appeals to the worst aspects of human nature And the #1 reason I hate capitalism: I am not Bill Gates! Envy! Perhaps that's what it comes down to. That's what the conservatives and defenders of Capitalism would have us believe. Or perhaps there is just something inherently unfair and unjust about it. Yes, it is easy to dislike some of the wealthy in our supposedly capitalist nation. And the easy response is that the United States is not a purely capitalist nation, certainly not as Adam Smith envisioned capitalism and not in the sense that the Austrian economists believed in and promoted either a minima...