Union versus Right-To-Work

I am no fan of big business like Boeing that has snuggled closely with big government for its income. But its high time that business and states fight back with the ultimate weapon of withdrawal. Boeing’s response to the NLRB should be swift and blunt; fine, have it your way. Not only will we not build in South Carolina, but in a week everey plant in the United States will be shut down with 160,000 employees hitting the unemployment line. Go stick your rules where the sun don’t shine.

And you still believe we have freedom in this country?

Chapter XII

The Union Label

With the once great industrial giant states of Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, New Jersey becoming a virtual wasteland of rusted and decaying manufacturing plants, state leaders from these and other northern states urged legislation to help halt the migration south and west out of this region. The problem, as seen from the eyes of any state trending toward the abyss of socialism, was the unfair advantage the growth states had in attracting business due to their ‘unfair labor laws”, they were right to work states. The northern states were the victims of cheap labor much in the same way the country as a whole was vulnerable to companies outsourcing production in foreign lands where wage rates were much lower. The current business climate within the United States was no different; northern manufacturing was being lost to cheap labor and less restrictive labor laws of the South and West. If this perceived imbalance was not rectified, then in the not too distant future, the citizenry of the North would consist of government bureaucrats and those, mainly the old and uneducated, who could not get out in time. The bureaucrats would have no tax base to support them. Secondly in political terms, the close electoral nature of the country would shift decidedly to the more conservative areas of the country. This scenario would not only affect the outcomes of future Presidential races, but also the make-up of the House of Representatives. Leveling the playing the field would entail legislation that would make certain union protections and a prevailing national wage rate.

The new legislation would once again boost the minimum wage rate, this time to nearly $10/hr. At the current minimum wage there were still states that had proposed increases above what was dictated by national law [namely California, Massachusetts, and Illinois] In order to avoid any possible inequities; the minimum wage would be raised high enough to ensure that no state was at a disadvantage. Additionally, it was proposed to require a minimum level of benefits covering items such as healthcare and pensions. Again, establishing a national level of benefit would put all businesses and regions of the country on a level playing field. With legislation of this kind in place, there would no longer be a distinct advantage for a business from a cost of labor standpoint locating in one area over another.

The fact remained that the industrial workers of the South and West received generous wages and benefits, though not nearly to the level of those once enjoyed by their union counterparts in the North. Considering the cost of living and the climate, the Southern and Western workers enjoyed a darn good life. Also they were aware how unions eventually effected future employment. The jobs created by the likes of Toyota, Honda, Sony, and even US Steel could quickly move elsewhere in the world if the pariah of unionism were to take hold.

Related posts:

1. Sunday Night Snippet: National Sales Tax Of course to the collectivists that support all types of government spending, the answer to budget shortfalls only have one solution; more taxes or as...
2. Sunday Night Snippet: Two Americas In an article published by the Wall Street Journal last Friday, writer Stephen Moore highlights the fact that twice as many people work for the...
3. Sunday Night Snippet: A House Divided A sign outside a Hudson establishment has the Lincolnesque words “Divided We Fall”. I speculate this pertains to the cacophony over the passage of the...

Over the course of the last several weeks, the socialists at the national and state and local government levels have proposed raising gas taxes, taxing the internet, increasing taxes on the rich, and even taxing the miles you drive. I find the last idea rather humorous since many of the socialist have dribbled for years about fuel efficient cars, electric cars, and public transportation. Only a statist could not have foreseen the impact on tax receipts from such fantasies.

What is obviously coming our way in the near future is a national sales tax, which I would support if it included the elimination of all other forms of taxation. But I believe any proposed national sales tax may come with a wrinkle that is akin to redistribution among the states. This is the subject of tonight’s Sunday Night Snippet.

The idea being floated in the Democratic cloakrooms was similar to the principle (if it could be called that) of equalization that was used in minimum wage laws and the recently enacted union laws. Armed with “we are all in this together mentality”, it was reasoned that individuals living within the boundaries of certain states had benefited from living in a state where income taxes did not exist or they were far below that of other states. In essence, these individuals had in a round-about way had avoided taxes. The obstacle in presenting such an idea to the American public was two-fold: First, it was unconstitutional to tax the citizens of one state differently than those of another; and secondly, many people in private industries had their 401ks take a major financial hit. It would be hard to drum up much sympathy for a government worker, when the rest of the country now faced uncertainty over personal finances.

“Wait a second”, exclaimed Tony, an aid to the Democrat Senator from Illinois. “The tax code does treat individuals from different states unequal. State income taxes are deductible, right? For instance an individual earning $100,000 in the state of Wisconsin pays for rounding purposes a state income tax rate of 6% or $6,000 in state taxes. This same individual files a federal 1040 return that allows a deduction of $6,000 for state and local taxes paid. On the other hand, an individual from Texas who earns $100,000 pays no state income taxes, and therefore receives no deduction on their form 1040. Effectively, the federal tax on two like individuals from two different states is unequal. Why not devise a similar plan using the deduction of state and local taxes to put a heavier burden on those from states with little or no state income taxes.”

“You know that may just be the answer, Harry”, the Senator nodded at the majority leader. “But we need to find another tax vehicle and somehow intertwine it with the income tax.”

Leaning into the discussion with one of those political smiles that says “we got them”, Vice-President Biden added, “What have the conservatives been clamoring for all these years, a flat tax. Suppose we propose a national value-added-tax with the promise of phasing out the income tax in ten years. The receipts from this tax will be dedicated to prop up the insolvent government retirement programs and public employee pension accounts. In order to sell this to the people in relatively high-taxed states, we include a mathematical maze that gives a deduction based on the state income tax rate. This way the burden will fall onto those who pay little or no state income taxes. It gives most everyone what they want; the conservatives get their flat-tax and government employee pensions are at least partially satisfied. The only people who will bitch are just a handful states.”

Ignoring the fact that it is a political rarity to implement a tax that truly ever was temporary, some Republican stalwarts of the flat-tax did indeed join in the drafting of a national sales tax with the belief that in a few years the federal income tax would cease to exist. Touted as a historic achievement of bipartisanship, the national sales tax met little resistance through the committee process where the bill was crafted. The proposed benefits of the bill were fairly easy selling points in that as had been pointed out earlier, there was something for almost everyone. The main features of the new tax bill were:

1. Proceeds would help the government keep its pension promises to current retirees and those in the near future.

2. In seven years the federal income tax would be phased out.

The national sales tax at first would be set at 8% on all goods and services except for food purchases (not at an eating establishment), medical care, and prescriptions. Once the federal income tax was phased out the sales tax would increase to 15%.

3. To help ease the burden of this additional tax there would be a formula for an offset deduction on federal taxes based on the state income tax rates for where one resides. The simplified formula would multiply the individual state’s top tax rate multiplied by 7, and then this percentage would be multiplied versus the sales tax calculator for bracketed income levels which would then result in the deduction allowed up to a maximum $20,000. So for instance a resident of Minnesota where the top tax rate is 7% would have an initial multiplier of 49%. With an income of $100,000, the sales tax calculator would determine that this individual would spend $4,000 in national sales taxes. Therefore the individual would take a deduction of $4,000 off their gross income when filing form 1040. Clearly the deduction becomes larger for those who live in higher tax state; those who pay no state income tax receive no deduction.

Related posts:

1. Sunday Night Snippet: Two Americas In an article published by the Wall Street Journal last Friday, writer Stephen Moore highlights the fact that twice as many people work for the...
2. Sunday Night Snippet: A House Divided A sign outside a Hudson establishment has the Lincolnesque words “Divided We Fall”. I speculate this pertains to the cacophony over the passage of the...
3. Sunday Night Snippet: Larry and Pete The irony of private unions like the UAW and Teamsters supporting the position of the government unions is hilarious. In protesting restrictions on collective bargaining...

War of Words

In tonight’s edition of Sunday Night Snippet, the governors of several states get into a battle of words. Unknown to others, the Governors of Mississippi and Vermont concoct a plan to stir the pot.

The Mississippi leadership chirped about how the perversions of the Massachusetts citizenry threatened to lead the country down a road of decadence. From the Texas executive mansion came hints that special taxes by states like Wisconsin could face retaliation from Texas oil companies, which would limit available supply to particular regions of the country. Even the Governor of Vermont got into the act when he responded to Mississippi’s comment concerning perversion, “If anybody can be considered an expert on perverted behavior, it would be the people of Mississippi where nine out of ten marriages are between brothers and sisters or close cousins.” The Mississippi governor fired back, “that the marriages in Mississippi involve a man and a women, at least you can tell the difference between the bride and the groom.” He also referenced the fact that no town in Mississippi had ever petitioned to join another state. The two warring governors, who had collaborated at Yellowstone, talked for an hour on the phone that evening and laughed at the utter disgust displayed by the media over their insulting exchanges. They also planned Act II of their political theater.

Meanwhile the atmosphere in Washington D.C. was growing more acrimonious with each passing day. One morning as the Senators filed in toward their desks on the Senate floor it was discovered that a tin cup, dark glasses, and a white cane had been placed at the spots occupied by the Senators from New Jersey, Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, and Wisconsin; a white label was taped to the tin cup where the word BEGGAR was written. It did not take long for this historically great deliberative body to break down into something reminiscent of a World Wrestling melee. Television cameras showed the nation and the world live action of red-faced senators standing toe-to-toe screaming, flailing arm gestures, and an occasional chest thump. After some semblance of order had been restored to the chamber, one of the Senators from Oklahoma gave the pot one last stir when he began throwing quarters into each cup. Naturally this started another round of outcry from the offended Senators and their political allies. Whatever discussions were to be held on the senate docket would have to be postponed until opposing Senators could collect themselves in a calm and civil manner; on the opposite side of rotunda, similar arguments and near fisticuffs rose to surface in the House of Representative.

It now seemed that the Preamble to the Constitution promise of domestic tranquility was being threatened by an increasing ferociousness in a war of words. The White House realized that this situation could possibly result in a perception by the public as a sign of political weakness and decided to step in as the great mediator. The President put forth the idea that he would hold a series of meetings that would bring together state leaders and members of Congress in an effort to peacefully resolve any differences. In the minds of some, these meetings would become an opportunity for even more mischief. Abhorred by the tone of their almost daily jousting, the White House invited the governors of Vermont and Mississippi along with several others to the first meeting.

The weather on June 2nd could not have been more splendid for the photo opportunities of the President, flanked on either side by a handful of the nation’s governors, addressing the nation in the Rose Garden. Basked in sunshine and political opportunism, the President promised the nation that with his help, these governors standing behind him would renew their commitment to the people of their states and to the country. He also assured the country that heated words are a sign of healthy democracy. Though the moment opened the door for mischief, the governors involved in secession talks felt that any action of indignation would better be left for the evening’s entertainment at dinner. After daylong talks, the governors gave every indication that peace had been achieved among them.

Related posts:

1. Sunday Night Snippet: Two Americas In an article published by the Wall Street Journal last Friday, writer Stephen Moore highlights the fact that twice as many people work for the...
2. Sunday Night Snippet: A New Dawn A critical step toward secession must include separation from the mother currency. As countries in Europe now have discovered, particularly Germany, a common currency acts...
3. Sunday Night Snippet: Emancipation Day In case you had not realized it, the tax filing deadline of April 15th has been shoved to April 18th for the Washinton D.C. celebration...

Past the Tipping Point

Our budgetary distress at the local, state, and federal levels has not been a result of the producers paying too little in taxes as some believe. Plain and simple the economy consists of too many forcibly taking the fruits of others. In other words the thieves greatly outnumber the victims.

In his Vice-Presidential acceptance speech at the 2004 Democratic convention, John Edwards talked about two Americas. He was right about the privileged versus the one trying to survive. But the contrast between the rich and poor in reality pertains to the wealth confiscated by government workers and the struggles of the producers from whom they steal. Yes John Edwards, two America do exist; the wealthy thieves and the poor victims.

John Kerry and I believe that we shouldn’t have two different economies in America: one for people who are set for life, they know their kids and their grand-kids are going to be just fine; and then one for most Americans, people who live paycheck to paycheck. You don’t need me to explain this to you do you?

Like many Wisconsin cities, the largest employer in Wausau was government, including the local school district. With government employees like the Voigts, the Kennedys, and the Carvers, outnumbering voters who worked in the private sector, it was impossible to hold back the tide of higher taxes. Since moving to the area ten years ago, the Dellinger’s property taxes had increased from $2,000 to $5800, and with the recent passage of a $20 million school referendum their property taxes would surely rise above $6,000 in the next two years.

Curt ran his own actuarial consulting business and Jenny worked three nights a week at the local hospital as a maternity nurse. She spent most of her time home schooling their two children, Matt age twelve and Patty age nine. They moved to Wassau over ten years ago when Curt, working for a major insurance company, was transferred to the district offices. Tired of several relocation moves and corporate politics, Curt set up his own shingle. His knowledge, sense of humor, and dedication toward his clients resulted in the small venture growing into a decent size business.

Though operating out of the basement of his home, the business grew to such a degree that Curt needed to hire a part-time office manager. Ellen Woodson fit the job perfectly. She had extensive experience in insurance and with two teenage children on the go, the part-time job worked nicely into the family routine. The extra income would help with future college expenses. The move meant that Ellen would have to look for other work in a tough job market.

Curt’s business covered a half dozen states and provided the family with an upper middle class income. But the tax environment made it harder to progress any further economically. Jenny’s job provided basic medical insurance and the income went directly toward savings. It became clear that in order for his family to advance financially they needed to locate to a more taxpayer friendly environment.

In the year 2000 the Tennessee Assembly attempted to pass a 5% tax on incomes in excess of $100,000. In a rowdy demonstration, the citizens of Tennessee revolted and virtually shut down the legislative process. WLAC radio morning host Steve Gil described the horn blowing automobiles encircling the capitol building in Nashville as the sound of freedom; an act of rebellion which would be pure fantasy in a great many states today.

People can hypothesize about a tax revolt, but the citizens of the Volunteer State actually executed one. The angry crowd that descended upon the state capitol had upset several lawmakers inside to the point of experiencing chest pains. As several gurneys left the capitol building with their political cargo, one bystander was heard yelling, “four down and about another hundred and ten to go.”

These were Curt’s type of people. He had little doubt that when it came to a fight with government, the people of Tennessee would not back down.

As the couple readied to walk toward the party, Jenny again reminded Curt not to use the occasion or the effects of alcohol as an opportunity for one final rant against government and its employees.

He admitted to her that the thought had crossed his mind, but he calmed her worries by reminding her, “You know I always act with class. Even though I hate the thought of them sucking off the rest of us for life, I try not to let that affect personal relationships. Remember it was Larry and his wife that took great offense to my participation in the anti-tax rally in Madison two years ago. It was Vicki Carver and her fellow teacher’s union thugs that harassed Mrs. Shepard when the old woman put a “Vote No” sign pertaining to the recent school referendum in her yard. I won’t say a provoking word tonight. But I will bet you $10 that the other side will show no such respect.”

Standing in front of the sign for the Wisconsin state line, Curt raised his right hand and extended the middle finger while Jenny snapped a photo.

Related posts:

1. Sunday Night Snippet: Larry and Pete The irony of private unions like the UAW and Teamsters supporting the position of the government unions is hilarious. In protesting restrictions on collective bargaining...
2. Sunday Night Snippet: A New Dawn A critical step toward secession must include separation from the mother currency. As countries in Europe now have discovered, particularly Germany, a common currency acts...
3. Sunday Night Snippets With the permission of the author, Ontheborderline will be providing snippets to a novel that unfortunately never found a publisher. The book market over the...

Why do we stick our nose in Libya, but not Syria? Since the Obama administration and many Neo-cons believe in the righteousness of our military involvement to protect anti-government forces, what would they think if Texas, for instance, seceded from the US government? Would Obama turn the military, like Ghaddafi and Asad of Syria, on the anti-government citizens? Would the United Nations call for a no-fly zone over the United States?

In this edition of Sunday Night Snippet, the question of the reaction by the Obama administration to secession is contemplated.

The guest traveling with the Governor of Vermont raised his hand. Senator Toms invited the gentleman to come before the rest and share his thoughts. The man took his place next to the Oklahoma Senator and without saying a word gave the gesture recognized by most people as the Italian gesture for “up yours”. The room instantly broke into a roar of laughter. When the crowd settled down after a few minutes, Governor Toms, still chuckling, again addressed the question. “So, how do we do it?”

Prodded by his good friend the Senator of Alabama, Governor Pike hesitantly came forward to speak. “Governor, the floor is yours.” Said Senator Toms as he joined those seated on the floor.

“I have thought seriously, as I am sure most of you have, about this question since Senator Seagroves first brought the topic of secession to my attention. Like I told Jeff a few weeks back, in my view the South prior to the start of the War Between the States, or being historically incorrect—the Civil War, made several key errors in their attempt to secede. You have to remember that the first winds of secession occurred during the Presidency of Andrew Jackson when South Carolina passed legislation that the state would not obey recently passed tariff bills by the United States Congress and signed into law by Jackson. The name of this non-compliant legislation by South Carolina is known as The Nullification Acts. Anyway, Jackson threatened to send federal troops into the capitol and without support from its neighbors, South Carolina finally backed down. Think for a second, what Jackson could have done if North Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, and Tennessee would have also stated their defiance to the tariffs. This is the same dilemma that the South could have imposed upon Lincoln. Imagine for a moment what the response would have been if instead of firing on Fort Sumter or massing an army at Bull Run, all of which gave the North a reason to fight, the individual states of the South declared that they no longer would adhere to the edicts of the federal government. Lincoln at the time had a military size of 16,000 at his disposal. Do you think for a moment that he would have spread those troops across the vast southern lands of this country? With no declared war, and I might add one other element where the South would have freed the slaves, it is hard to imagine the northern states supporting an attack on the South. In this case, I speculate that Lincoln would not have had the balls to order federal troops into the capitol cities of the seceded states; knowing full well that such a move could incite open defiance by the North.

I believe that my hypothetical course of history holds the same for today. If a number of states seceded without provocative actions toward the federal government, then I don’t think Barack has the balls to send troops into our states. The vision of U.S tanks rolling through our capitol cities on CNN or Fox would create an outcry from the rest of the nation and the world. Like Lincoln in my “what if” scenario prior to the War Between the States, the only option would be to let the states secede.”

The chatter in the room arose instantly along with nods and demonstrative gestures of approval. “No way would he have the balls”; can you imagine the scene in the White House”; man, lamps and furniture would be thrown through the windows”, were some of the comments that could be heard among the gathering.

Related posts:

1. Sunday Snippets: Sandra Hitchens and the Financial Nuclear Fallout As Flashy notes in a previous post to this one, the federal debt that now stands at nearly $15 trillion is expected to increase by...
2. Government Thug in Chief One of the great authorities on the Constitution and American history is Judge Andrew Napolitano. In the following brief interview with Ralph Nader, he describes...
3. Sunday Night Snippet: A New Dawn A critical step toward secession must include separation from the mother currency. As countries in Europe now have discovered, particularly Germany, a common currency acts...

In the story of Larry and Pete, you could easily substitute the name of a private sector union employee for Pete.

Chapter V

The Takers and the Taken“I hope you brought a lot of money with you. The swing was working pretty well all week,” Larry Voigt called out to his buddy Pete Swanson as he walked toward the putting green.

Larry, age 54, had been retired nearly four years from his city job as Archive Administrator at the public library. The twenty-five years of government employment paid handsomely in retirement, in which he did not contribute one penny towards and healthcare benefits that required a small percentage of out of pocket costs. His wife Denise was also retired with similar benefits from a secretarial position at the County Clerks Office.

Though their combined working incomes never exceeded $100,000, the Voigts enjoyed a lifestyle far superior to that of their friends. A generous retirement plan gave them 70% of their highest earned salaries, which meant that the couple received $70,000 in pension income per annum.

Retirees in the private sector, who must fund nearly the full amount of their retirement, could only dream of such income. In fact the annual retirement income received by the Voigts came close to equaling the current salaries realized by Pete and his wife. Though identical in age, the two couples were eons apart in their ability to retire.

Larry and Pete would play golf every Saturday and Sunday in late spring through early autumn at a local public course near their homes in Wassau, Wisconsin. From early October through late April, the Voigts would escape the harsh upper Midwest winters by holing up in their golf course condominium in Scottsdale, Arizona. Pete Swanson and his wife would reserve two weeks of vacation time during the winter months to visit the Voigts.

To the point of being obnoxious, Larry would jokingly boast about his status in life. To friends he would ask the riddle of what the difference was between Saturday and Tuesday? After giving the listener a moment to ponder the question, he would inform them that to him everyday was Saturday.

It was a point that slowly seeped like a wound in the mind of Pete Swanson. For some time it had dawned on him that not only did he still have to work while his friend played golf, but that he was funding Larry’s lifestyle. As a benefactor of a government retirement system, Larry in a way was robbing him of his own ability to retire. Pete worked, which helped Larry play. It would be years before Pete could hang up his work at Swangers Tool and Die where he worked as an accounts manager.

Another realization gnawing at Pete was that government employees usually breed another generation of government employees. The Voigts fit this scenario perfectly as all three of their grown children worked in some form of government employment. This not only meant that Pete’s own children would be paying for the Voigt children’s retirement, but if Larry and Denise lived long enough, then the Swanson offspring would be paying the retirement for two generations of Voigts.

Pete never bothered going through the exercise of calculating the money needed to fund all these retirement benefits including Social Security, but he surmised the amount to be astronomical. His suspicions of a very large number had been confirmed in a recent USA Today article that put the necessary dollars in excess of $60 trillion.

The two friends played their normal game that consisted of a dollar nassau and 50 cent skins. In a nassau, a player wins a dollar each for winning the front nine, back nine, and the eighteen holes. In addition, fifty cents is won for the lowest score on a hole. In case of a tie, the money carries over to the next hole and continues until someone wins. Fifty cents can also be won by making a birdie, holing a shot from off the green or making par on a hole after playing a shot from the sand.

Up until the last two years, the amount of money exchanging hands between Larry and Pete on any given match was less than three dollars. But with Larry playing golf almost daily and Pete working increased hours due to cutbacks at the plant, Larry started to pocket more and more money from their friendly game.

On this particular Saturday, Larry played the game of his life. Unable to put much practice time in of late, Pete’s score fell woefully short of his average. When they walked off the eighteenth hole, Pete owed Larry $12.50.

The drubbing along with the string of past losses reflected the disparity in the two lives. The image was not lost upon Pete.

After pocketing the money and ordering a round of drinks, Larry made another one of those obnoxious comments about his current lot in life.

“Wow, I can’t believe how well I played today,” boasted Larry. “It just shows you what is possible when you can play or practice nearly every day of the year. If I continue like this, then the boys in Arizona better save their money this summer.”

Larry’s comment finally drove Pete over the edge.

“Larry we have been friends for a long time, but I have to ask you a question. Does your conscience ever bother you in the fact that your retirement and improved golf game is a result of taxing other people like me? You and Denise made no more money or saved more than us. You brag about retirement like it was a result of some grand financial wizardry on your part. Does that not bother you just a tiny bit?”

Though it was a question he started to hear more and more, specifically from conservative talk radio, Larry was startled by the bluntness of his friend’s remarks. He countered by saying, “Look, me and Denise sacrificed a lot of income that we could have made in the private sector. One of the delayed benefits for being a civil servant was a nice retirement package. Besides, all these people moaning about our retirement were free to choose a government job.”

Pete would hear nothing of it,” That’s a crock of BS and you know it. You and Denise’s income has always been on par with almost everyone else in the neighborhood. As to your second point, you are right. But just think if everyone took a government job, then who would make the products we enjoy. Where would the money for your precious retirement come from?”

Related posts:

1. Sunday Night Snippets With the permission of the author, Ontheborderline will be providing snippets to a novel that unfortunately never found a publisher. The book market over the...

Much of the story is happening now. According to the author, events may spin the country apart later this summer. As a weekly series, partial chapters will be released on Sunday evenings. With the protests by government union thugs and the passage of currency legislation in Utah this week, portions of two chapters are showcased later tonight.

All copyrights remain with the author

No related posts.

The Church has never allowed the Creed to be interfered with. It is fifteen hundred years since it was formulated, but every suggestion for its amendment, every logical criticism or attack on it, has been rejected. The Church has realized that anything and everything can be built up on a document of that sort, no matter how contradictory or irreconcilable with it. The faithful will swallow it whole, so long as logical reasoning is never allowed to be brought to bear on it.

Adolf Hitler, quoted in Hermann Rauschning, The Voice of Destruction (New York: Putnam, 1940), pp. 239–40.

Craig Biddle writes: “Hitler’s plans required that people have faith; thus, he had nothing but contempt for logic. And he was neither the first nor the last to feel this way. David Hume was as explicit about his hatred of reason as he was about his love for feelings. Just as he insisted that feelings are our only moral guides, so he insisted that ‘Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them.’ What does that mean? Hume tells us: ‘It is not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger.’ “

So, it is the case that ideas have consequences and the critical issue in Biddle’s book, Loving Life is just that.. One must have a rational, fact-based, means of making morally significant choices in life. Sadly, the general mass of humanity has only perceived two options for moral decision-making: religious authority and social need. Both involve subjectivism, neither provide an adequate means for living ones life to the fullest nor can be relied upon.

I have just about finished the book, and what is clear is that Mr. Biddle writes with power and precision. Yet, the book is not as much an attack on mysticism as it is a referral to reality. The flaws of mysticism become rather self-evident as one progresses through the material. I would recommend this book as food for thought to anyone with an open mind, or anyone who wonders what it is that has ruined the Republican party…

No related posts.

Economics does not allow any breaking up into special branches. It invariably deals with the interconnectedness of all phenomena of acting and economizing. All economic facts mutually condition one another. Each of the various economic problems must be dealt with in the frame of a comprehensive system assigning its due place and weight to every aspect of human wants and desires. All monographs remain fragmentary if not integrated into a systematic treatment of the whole body of social and economic relations.

To provide such a comprehensive analysis is the task of my book Human Action , a Treatise on Economics. It is the consummation of lifelong studies and investigations, the precipitate of half a century of experience. I saw the forces operating which could not but annihilate the high civilization and prosperity of Europe. In writing my book, I was hoping to contribute to the endeavors of our most eminent contemporaries to prevent this country from following the path which leads to the abyss.

So, what’s on your Christmas List?

Get Human Action!

No related posts.

“What lies at the bottom of the bottomless well isn’t oil, it’s logic. Fuels recede, demand grows, efficiency makes things worse, but logic ascends, and with the rise of logic we attain the impossible-infinite energy, perpetual motion, and the triumph of power. It will all run out but we will always find more. Some say this is not good for the planet, but that’s how it works, regardless. What we will forever seek, and forever find, is not energy but the logic of power.”

I think this is a powerful point that is profoundly the antithesis of the greenery crowd’s not-so-veiled premise. Our advancements as humans, our increases in living well and enjoying our time here on the planet, is directly proportional to the degree to which we use logic in our pursuit of more and more refined forms of energy… The more we use, the better we become at finding more and focusing it more effectively, ergo the better off we become in tangible, measurable, ways. And, not surprisingly, is fully consistent with capitalism, private property and individual rights…

For example, using hydrocarbons in lieu of carbohydrates is proper because of the logic of the energy equation. Building a SUV-grade superhighway uses 10 times less land, per mile, and per useful pound moved, than growing food to fuel a bicycle rider – plowing for carbohydrates adds more carbon to the air (if you’re concerned about that, which I am not) than mining for coal or drilling for oil, because a farm requires so much cleared land. Bottom line, an internal combustion engine is far superior to a human stomach insofar as producing power to move things from point A to point B, moreover it turns out to be a far better alternative if you happen to be concerned about CO2…but this runs counter to the greenery world’s reversal of the laws of causality. Therefore, they reject all of it out of hand… and we tend to fail in pointing out the flaw in their fundamental logic.

Now, this is not to say that efficiency is inherently bad – clearly, the above example demonstrates “efficiency” but not simply for the sake of efficiency, rather for the sake of power production. I am also not suggesting that exercise is futile – I happen to race mountain bikes and ride road bicycles not because I think I am saving the damn planet, but BECAUSE IT’S FUN AND IT IMPROVES MY PERSONAL FITNESS AND WELLBEING!

Fact is, efficiency can be a beautiful demonstration of ones mind-work, but it just isn’t going to reduce demand. Never has, never will. This too is an axiom that appears to be missing in all of the discussions – most notably among people and politicians who drive public opinion and, to one degree or another, those of us who argue against them – we almost always seem to leave this argument unused yet it is the most powerful of all!

Logic and reason show us plainly that efficiency leads to more consumption, and not less, therefore the plain wrapper of the greenery movement should be discarded out of hand. By entertaining these people and arguing on their side of the field does no one any good – in fact, their prescriptions make us all poorer, net. They get away with the noise of externalities arguments because we let them off the hook of the axiom that A is A, and the illogic of their premises.

It isn’t, in my view, a matter of creating equally as absurd contrarian arguments (pointing out absurdity by being absurd), but rather simply pointing out the logic of consumption and using power as proper to the advancement of man and his progeny. The best allocator of the resources we use to create power has always been and always will be market capitalism because it gives us accurate signals through its moral medium, money. Those signals are a direct result of cost accounting which cannot happen, by definition, in a socialist world. So, consume at will to the best of your economic ability and within the frame of your own rational self interest – the world depends on it!

No related posts.

No related posts.

Ron Paul’s loyal supporters helped him set campaign fundraising records and capture more delegates during his presidential run than some of his high-profile Republican rivals. They even managed to briefly shut down Nevada’s GOP convention earlier this month over a rules change controversy.

Now they’ve taken his latest book to the top of the Amazon.com bestseller list.

“The Revolution: A Manifesto”, released earlier this month, is currently No. 1 on the Web site’s list of top sellers, besting even Oprah’s latest Book Club selection.

“Despite a media blackout, this septuagenarian physician-turned-congressman sparked a movement that has attracted a legion of young, dedicated, enthusiastic supporters . . . a phenomenon that has amazed veteran political observers and made more than one political rival envious,” boasts the book’s product description, adding: “Candidates across America are already running as ‘Ron Paul Republicans.’”

See Story Here

No related posts.

No related posts.

Learn this list!

(1) Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital.
(2) John Maynard Keynes, The General Theory of Employment Interest and Money.
(3) Joan Robinson, The Economics of Imperfect Competition.
(4) Edward Chamberlin, Theory of Monopolistic Competition.
(5) Benjamin E. Lippencott, ed., On the Economic Theory of Socialism.
(6) John Kenneth Galbraith, The Affluent Society, The New Industrial State (2d ed.).
(7) Joseph P. McKenna, Aggregate Economic Analysis.
(8) Paul Samuelson and William Nordhaus (9), Economics. Note: This is the leading “textbook case” of the exposition of economic fallacies and anticapitalist doctrines.
(10) Dudley Dillard, Economic Development of the North Atlantic Community.

No related posts.

Tucker Carlson asks the snot-nosed puke if he had any evidence Ron Paul ever publicly stated anything of the sort … er, ah, well, no.

For the record, all of this has surfaced before – it is not new. From what I have been able to gather, a staffer for Dr. Paul wrote the inflamatory passages during the period between Paul’s stints in the House of Reps in a newsletter he did not have daily control over … and Ron Paul has apologized for the newsletter’s occasional bizarre content. A more detailed account of this is available HERE (Freemarketnews). The Freemarketnews article is based on an interview done by S. C. Gwynne, a reporter for Texas Monthly Magazine. That article was a wide ranging interview with Dr. Paul, written in October of 2001 (flashy has obtained a copy of the full article). It does contain Ron Paul’s explanation of this matter and below is the relevant excerpt in context:

. . . For reasons that even he cannot quite explain, in 1987 Ron Paul became the Libertarian party’s candidate for president of the United States. Though his positions on most issues are identical to those of the Libertarians (abortion being the mail exception), Paul admits that this was a strange, almost Sisyphean move, considering his prospects for victory. “I probably invested close to a year,” he says. “It was a lot of time and effort. Sometimes I had some ambivalence about how productive it was.”As it turned out, it was hugely productive but not in ways that Paul could see then. Though he got less than one percent of the vote in the 1988 presidential election, he managed to unite a vast network of true believers—not only staunch Libertarians, but also anti-gun control folks, fiscal conservatives, home-schoolers, right-to-lifers, school prayer advocates, isolationists, and people who generally felt that the U.S. government was veering out of control. Their financial support would become a key factor in Paul’s return to congressional politics.

That happened in 1996. With Nolan Ryan as his honorary campaign chairman, he entered a bruising Republican primary against incumbent Greg Laughlin, who had switched parties the year before. Paul was now running in a new district, the 14th (he had moved his residence from Lake Jackson to his beach house in Surfside). It was a demographic oddity that connected the Gulf Coast and Central Texas and included the Brazos, Colorado, and Guadalupe lower river basins and the small cities of Victoria, San Marcos, and Freeport. Paul immediately discovered that the electoral ground rules had changed: With the Democrats trying to regain control of the House, which they had lost two Dr. No years earlier, and Speaker Newt Gingrich backing Laughlin, whom GOP regulars viewed as the stronger candidate, someone who had run for president on the Libertarian ticket—and who had advocated things like the repeal of federal drug laws and an end to the “so-called drug war”—was now a much bigger and more visible target. “My image was completely different in 1996 than in 1976,” Paul says. “You can’t just get passed off as an average Republican having done what I did. We got hit hard.”

Most of the hitting was on the drug issue, first by Laughlin, whom Paul beat convincingly in a runoff, then by Charles “Lefty” Morris, Paul’s opponent in the general election. Morris was certain that Paul’s radical views would discredit him with voters. “We just have to get his ideas out, and people will know what he really stands for,” Morris said at the time. He ran ads saying that Paul advocated the legalization of illegal drugs, which was not entirely accurate. Though some of Paul’s public remarks had suggested that he supported
full drug legalization, his official position was (and is) that federal drug laws ought to be repealed: Let the states handle all drug laws. Then Morris’ subalterns dug up something even more damaging to Paul: copies of a 1992 newsletter he had published that contained racially tinted remarks.

They caused a minor sensation. In one issue of the Ron Paul Survival Report, which he had published since 1985, he called former U.S. representative Barbara Jordan a “fraud” and a “half-educated victimologist.” In another issue, he cited reports that 85 percent of all black men in Washington, D.C., are arrested at some point: “Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the ‘criminal justice system,’ I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.” And
under the headline “Terrorist Update,” he wrote: “If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.”

In spite of calls from Gary Bledsoe, the president of the Texas State Conference of the NAACP, and other civil rights leaders for an apology for such obvious racial typecasting, Paul stood his ground. He said only that his remarks about Barbara Jordan related to her stands on affirmative action and that his written comments about blacks were in the context of “current events and statistical reports of the time.” He denied any racist intent. What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this.

When I ask him why, he pauses for a moment, then says, “I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren’t really written by me. It wasn’t my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around. I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady.” Paul says that item ended up there because “we wanted to do something on affirmative action, and it ended up in the newsletter and became personalized. I never personalize anything.”

His reasons for keeping this a secret are harder to understand: “They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them . . . I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn’t come from me directly, but they [campaign aides] said that’s too confusing. ‘It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.’” It is a measure of his stubbornness, determination, and ultimately his contrarian nature that, until this surprising volte-face in our interview, he had never shared this secret. It seems, in retrospect, that it would have been far, far easier to have told the truth at the time.

That controversy ought to have destroyed him. Lefty Morris certainly thought it would, and things looked even bleaker for Paul when the AFL-CIO kicked in with a heavy rotation of anti-Paul ads. That may explain why, even after midnight on Election Day, when the newspapers were all giving the election to Paul, Morris still refused to concede. He simply couldn’t believe it.

Please note the New Republic reporter’s apparent shock that Ron Paul once spoke at a secessionist conference, AND recently quoted questionable characters such as author Thomas J. Di Lorenzo (von Mises Institute author)…. never mind that he does not provide any context to this issue.

I actually have a copy and have read the book (The Real Lincoln) to which the little imp spoke of and it’s actually a very compelling read, notwithstanding the noted historical errors (documentations). But, don’t just take my word for it. Here is what Walter E. Williams^* had to say about it:

“Americans celebrate Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, but H.L. Mencken correctly evaluated the speech, “It is poetry not logic; beauty, not sense.” Lincoln said that the soldiers sacrificed their lives “to the cause of self-determination — government of the people, by the people, for the people should not perish from the earth.” Mencken says: “It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of people to govern themselves.”

In Federalist Paper 45, Madison guaranteed: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.” The South seceded because of Washington’s encroachment on that vision. Today, it’s worse. Turn Madison’s vision on its head, and you have today’s America.

DiLorenzo does a yeoman’s job in documenting Lincoln’s ruthlessness and hypocrisy, and how historians have covered it up. The Framers had a deathly fear of federal government abuse. They saw state sovereignty as a protection. That’s why they gave us the Ninth and 10th Amendments. They saw secession as the ultimate protection against Washington tyranny.”

Something about the New Republic’s expose smells very wrong here, but I will await any new evidence and then act accordingly.

^*Walter E. Williams is the John M. Olin distinguished professor of economics at George Mason University, and a nationally syndicated columnist.

No related posts.