RAND PAUL BANISHED TO THE KIDDIES TABLE. THE LIBERTARIAN MOMENT PASSED WITH THEIR GAY MARRIAGE AND LEGAL POT VICTORIES

By GOP debate rules Kentucky senator and eye doctor Rand Paul, son of the anti-Federal Reserve firebrand, retired congressman Ron Paul, has been relegated to the kiddies table. This is for good reason.


Right now, Rand Paul would be a horrible president at this time of his life, horrible. Rand Paul is another one of these Koch-brothers pseudo-libertarians, which really makes him a Rockefeller Republican. For more on the Koch-brothers pseudo-libertarians, see my works:

• REASONOIDS OF REASON.COM, AMERICA'S CRYPTO-REPUBLICANS
• WHOA DUDE, WHAT? LEGALIZING ISN'T LIBERTARIAN? PASS ME THE BONG. GOO GOO GOO JOOB.
• THE PSEUDO-LIBERTARIANS IDIOTS AT REASON.COM NEVER STOP PUSHING THEIR ANTI-CAPITALIST, KOCH BROTHERS PRO CRONY POLITICS AGENDA

I don't want to get you bogged down in details, but true libertarianism boils down to liberty over duty and right. In short, libertarianism means living by fewer laws and thus fewer rights and duties. Adding ever more rights and duties is how you lessen freedom and expand political control over everyone through legal means!

And to show you that organized libertarians aren't libertarians at all, In Rand Paul vs. The Libertarian Moment (Dec. 15, 2015), libertarian leader Nick Gillespie applauds his gang of libertarians for already having "an effect on politics (think pot legalization, gay marriage (legalization)." And what these jokers have done for smoking pot and licensed marriages for queers, libertarians now want to grant foreigners rights and impose duties upon you.

Rand Paul is one of these guys. Rand Paul is for wages-killing open borders and thus Paul stands against capitalism. In an interview with Andy Hallman who is part of the foolish Open Borders project, Rand Paul revealed his true colors:

Andy Hallman: "The short version of our exchange is this: I asked [Rand Paul] why the government could not exempt immigrants from welfare if that was the case. [Rand Paul] seemed open to the idea of unlimited immigration provided the immigrants came to work and not go on welfare, and suggested cutting welfare and opening the borders in the same stroke is not so easy."

Rand Paul: "We’re a country of 300 million, it would be a bit disruptive to have 600 million people show up, so it has to be an orderly process..."

It should be clear, Rand Paul on supporting massive immigration. By his own words, Paul says that Americans should double our population!

Paul says nothing about limiting foreign-born nationals as a percent of native-born U.S. citizens to 5% in any year, tops.


Paul goes onward to say this shocker:

"I’m for as many people coming to work who want to. I’m for an expansive work visa program where we don’t mind people coming to work."

So there you have it. Rand Paul is for unlimited work visas for foreigners! In short, Rand Paul says that you should pay taxes and lower your wages and thus living standards so foreigners can come to the USA and suppress your wages and maybe even take away your jobs.

Elsewhere, Rand Paul said this:

"When I think of immigration, I think that you do have to have a secure border, but I don't automatically think that immigrants are bad people. I think the opposite. I think of my great-grandfather, who came here from Germany, and I think that most immigrants come here seeking the American dream. And I'm not going to vilify all immigrants with a broad brush. I think there are some bad people--and I put in legislation on the sanctuary cities to try to make sure that never happens again, but I think by and large, the people who come to our country want the American dream."

Rand Paul supports the the Foreigner's Dream. Rand Paul believes the American Dream should be dreams of foreigners. Rand Paul doesn't support the the true American Dream.

The true American Dream is for an Americans to enter the middle class. As a son of the Massachusettes Bay Colony, I say the American Dream is for Americans — to become middle class through personal effort under a government of constrained politicians.

In, BUT WERE YOU EVER IN THE MIDDLE CLASS?, I gave you the true meaning of middle class —  those who earn 51% of their income from labor and who are free-and-clear title owners to an improved parcel. In short, if you're middle class, you own a house outright and you work for most of your income.

The USA never has been a nation of immigrants like Rand Paul's great-grandfather. In THE BIG LIE: AMERICANS ARE A NATION OF IMMIGRANTS, I reveal to you the data which easily refutes the big lie. Also, the data suggests the best years of American life, when the economy really grew and living standards rose, always happened when immigration kept the foreign-born well under 10% relative to the total population.

And here, Paul says he is for amnesty but he calls it something else:

"If we secure the border and we can say who is coming, who is going, and only people come, come legally, the 11 million that are here, I think there could be a work status for them. But I am open to immigration reform. I voted against the bill that came forward, though, primarily because it limited the number of legal work visas."

Real life is about your self-preservation and self-interest. Why would you want to pay taxes to import your own job competitors and job competitors for your offspring?

Rand Paul doesn't understand commerce and thus the whole of the economy. Rand Paul has an undeveloped, immature understanding of capitalism and commerce, both insular and foreign. It is all too clear that Rand Paul doesn't get capitalism at all.

In SOPHIE'S CHOICE OF CAPITAL OR LABOR. A FREE-MARKETS LIBERTARIAN BECOMES AN ANTI-CAPITALIST AND PERPETUATES AN ECONOMICS MYTH, I showed you that an increase the working-age population at an increasing rate relative to the return to extant capital, you get less capital. As capital is the sole source of wages, you get lower wages on falling capital.

Capitalism is about increasing returns to capital under efficiency. Increasing the working-age population destroys that return and leads to less capital. As capital is the sole source of wages, less capital means lower wages.

Guys like Rand Paul don't really understand capitalism because they don't really understand the capital part of capitalism. They don't understand how the return to capital is the key to wages and how growing your working age population at too fast a rate kills the return to extant capital and thus causes the capitalism death spiral.

For more on capitalism and what Rand Paul does not understand see my important works:

• JASON X AND LEW ROCKWELL'S CULT OF MISES. ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF WHY AMERICANS ARE IN BIG TROUBLE.
• CAPITALISM. BECAUSE WITHOUT IT, YOU WOULD BE LIVING AS A BARE SUBSISTENCE SAVAGE
• ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. WHY IT'S BAD FOR YOU AND A BOON FOR ANTI-CAPITALISTS.

Paul also wants open borders and free trade agreements with countries that lack significant capitalism, the net result of which kills high-paying jobs for Americans. It's little wonder why Trump is winning (see: WHY TRUMP IS WINNING. THE REST ARE INTERNATIONALIST SELLOUTS WHO STAND AGAINST WORKING-CLASS AMERICANS).

Besides, Paul has no shot at winning against Hillary even if he were to win the GOP nomination precisely because he is a pseudo-liberarian, pro-open borders candidate. Rand Paul never could win the white, no-college grad vote, which is the vote that will decide this election (see: NO ORDINARY WHITE GUY COULD EVER HOPE TO WIN THE U.S. PRESIDENCY IN 2016 AND MAYBE NEVER AGAIN. THE GOP WILL BE OVER SOON ENOUGH).

American Libertarianism is little more than libertines who support big business and oppose welfare. It's the worst mix of ideological doctrines. The kind of mix American Libertarians support is what you would have seen in the failing days of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe communism — inefficient, big business combined with laziness and debauchery of a corrupt people.

American Libertarians don't understand the United States at all, not from its founding and not its present state. 

• LAW VS LIBERTY AND THE AMERICAN WAY.
• CASHING IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS. TRUTH, JUSTICE AND THE AMERICAN WAY.
• LAW VS JUSTICE. GOVERNMENT VS SOCIETY. POLITICS VS YOU.

Worse, though, American Libertarians don't even understand themselves.

• STUPID IS AS STUPID DOES AND THE STUPIDITY OF THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY

For more on Rand Paul's publicly-expressed stupidity on immigration, read On The Issue's Rand Paul on Immigration.

Read more ...

JASON X AND LEW ROCKWELL'S CULT OF MISES. ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF WHY AMERICANS ARE IN BIG TROUBLE.

So I came across someone hiding behind the name Jason. Jason is typical of those suffering from hyper-indoctrination. Jason belongs to the Cult of Mises.

The Cult of Mises was started by Lew Rockwell.

People like Jason like to believe they support free-market capitalism, but they have been so programmed to not even understand what free-market capitalism is. Here are some of the gems programmed into the mind of Jason and here are my responses.

Jason: 

The fact is capital goes where its treated the best.

Me: 

Capital doesn't do anything. Capital isn't alive. Capital can't decide. 

Individuals of mankind decide what they do with their property — their right of ownership in chattel, works of the mind and future obligations. Individuals decide whether or not to put their property into production.

Jason: 

The market will adjust.

Me: 

Markets are abstractions. Markets aren't alive. Markets can't act. Markets can't adjust.

Only individuals are alive. Only individuals can act. Only individuals can adjust.

Jason: 

By capital we mean individuals, which in mass consist of the market. 

Me:

Capital means property put to production. That is all it means. Capital doesn't mean individuals. From where did you accept that stupid, false belief?

• CAPITALISM. BECAUSE WITHOUT IT, YOU WOULD BE LIVING AS A BARE SUBSISTENCE SAVAGE.

Jason: 

The market is a living organism, an adaptive complex system.

Me:

Markets are abstraction. Only individuals exist who can act to try to trade property in pursuit of profit.

Jason:

Man is the economic agent. The market is living in all but name, comprised of millions of individuals. This is why the "market" fears, has greed, euphoria and pessimism

Me:

You have let metaphorical speech of mantras muddle your mind. Thus, you have accepted a slew of false beliefs.

Jason:

I can't hire anyone I want at what wage I want. The state interferes in my right to work and to hire. 

Me:

An enterpriser is free to hire anyone resident of the USA and free to pay at whatever wage rate he can negotiate at or above lawgivers' minimum. 

If you stopped and then started to think, you would see that minimum wage might cause some products never to come to market.

But also, you would see that absent welfare, no employer could pay minimum wage because no one would work at a loss. Wages must at least equal costs in the absence of welfare subsidy.

All welfare paid to Americans who work, whether EIC, or otherwise ends up being a subsidy to employers who pay minimum wage. If you rid Americans of TANF, SNAP, Section 8, Pell, and so forth, you can have unrestricted immigration.

As it is the American system of welfare and compulsory taxation means that current workers who pay taxes to Congress and who can't get out of compulsory taxation through write-offs in effect subsidize enterprisers who pay wages below costs of living. 

Subsidizing enterprisers means inauthentic capitalism. It's crony politics.

• IT'S ALWAYS CRONY POLITICS, CRONY GOVERNANCE AND CRONY REGULATORY CAPTURE 
• TRY CRONY POLITICS, CRONY GOVERNANCE AND CRONY REGULATORY CAPTURE BECAUSE THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS CRONY CAPITALISM.

Unrestricted immigration would only make that worse.

Jason:

I don’t really care if they are illegal or not. 

Me:

Your support of illegal aliens is a kind of crony politics. Do you not know what illegal means? Enterprisers are not free to hire those who are not residents of the USA. 

While hiring illegals is good for an individual business owner who now can enjoy unearned profits by free-riding on everyone else, if enough firm operators do so, it's disastrous for all.

Jason:

If the illegals work for cheaper, then let them bring down labor. That makes it cheaper to run a business anyhow.

Me: 

No one will work at a loss. Americans won't work at jobs where the pay rate fails to cover costs (i.e., living expenses).

Wage rates are prices and get set by double auctions — English auctions for would-be employers and Dutch auctions for would-be workers.

Illegals, whether from Mexico or elsewhere, beat Americans at wage auctions. The can offer lower bids for wages for work done because their costs are lower. Illegals avoid huge costs incurred by Americans who must pay income taxes to Congress and their states' lawgivers respectively. 

It's not that illegals don't do the work that Americans won't do. Illegals do the work at below cost, below break even. What they do is akin to the Japanese in the 1970s and 1980s known as dumping.

Jason:

The fact that people will bid wages down is part of capitalism and would happen in an unhampered economy regardless. 

Me:

But in an unhampered economy, wages never could fall below break even. Firms couldn't exist that today rely on the welfare system to subsidize their low wage workers (wages below break even).

Jason:

You are interfering with natural process in the economy.

Me:

I am not doing anything.

Illegal immigration is a boon to crony-political pseudo-capitalists and not free-market capitalists. Firm operators who employ illegals enjoy unearned profits. Without illegals, many would be forced to exit the field of competition.

Having immigration laws and welfare and then having enterprisers cheating by hiring illegals harms everyone else. 

Jason:

But, but, but, the higher wages are, the higher costs of production are. The higher costs of production are, the higher prices are.

The higher prices are, the smaller are the quantities of goods and services demanded and the number of workers employed in producing them.

Me:

If what you claim is true, then explain residential realty in the 2000s. As house prices went up to records every year, record employment in construction went up.

If what you claim is true, then explain medicine. Medicine is at an all-time high in demand with the highest prices employing the most it ever has.

Jason: 

If there were suddenly a whole lot more oranges, we’d expect the price of oranges to fall or the number of oranges that went uneaten to surge.

Me: 

Prices get set by winning bidders and not by suppliers. When there were record car sales in the USA — record supply of cars — prices were highest.

Prices have nothing to do with costs. Prices get set by winning bidders of purchase and sale in the face of what is on offer. That is my Law of Prices. 

Costs arise from the sum of sales on prices set by winning bidders. If the sum of sales of a producer fails to cover costs, that producer goes to ruin. That is my Axiom of Profit.

If costs set prices — which is Ricardo's fallacy by the way — then no firm would ever go out of business. When costs would rise, firm operators would simply put up prices.

Jason:

Immigrants don’t just increase the supply of labor, though; they simultaneously increase demand for it, using the wages they earn to rent apartments, eat food, get haircuts, buy cellphones.

Me: 

There you have committed the Fallacy of Non-Sequitur. A flood of immigrants that causes the prime working age growth rate to accelerate will cause a fall in wage rates as wage rates are prices. 

A fall in wages causes a fall in prices. A fall in prices kills the return on capital. Future capital spending gets curtailed as no one invests to lose.

Flooding a country with illegals suppresses capital spending because enterprisers can't get suitable returns to capital in the face of cheap labor. With capital spending suppressed, wages are suppressed. All of that causes an economy to go into a death spiral.

A country can't have a growth rate in prime working-age population outstripping the spending rate on capital. If that happens, wages fall and thus prices fall.

On falling prices, even less capital gets deployed. On less capital, per capita productivity falls. Returns to extant capital fall. This is a spiral of capitalism death. 

Unrestricted immigration under a system of welfare leads to a capitalism death spiral as few can gain increasing returns to capital when working age population growth exceeds capital spending growth.

With your wrong-headed support for illegals, you are advocating for the economy to die, Jason.

The empirical facts of reality affirm me. The flood of illegal and legal immigrants suppressed wages. When the edifice of capital built on over-extended credit collapsed as returns weren't forthcoming, millions were thrown out of work. Since 2008, the economy has shrunk.

The empirical facts of reality disprove you, Jason.

Jason:

Where have I heard this argument before? Oh wait, its been repeated every 30 to 50 years by the spoiled classes every time new immigration waves come and do jobs for cheaper. It’s the Germans, the Jews or Irish and now it’s the Mexicans.

Immigration made us great in the 19th century and will do so now. 1800s immigration settled the Great West. You blame immigrants like everyone did back then. 

Me:

If I were to blame anyone it would be past and present members of Congress. It's obvious why foreigners flee their countries. No one should blame them for doing so.

It should have been obvious to you that before 1914 when immigration hardly was restricted, not only was there immigration but also there was emigration. Many who came left soon thereafter as they couldn't make it in America.

Subsequently, a natural flow of wages existed whereby employers had to pay at least break even. There was no welfare to subsidize their inefficient operations.

It's likely, that most Americans between the ages of 40 and 90 would agree the best years of American life, economically, happened between 1940 and 1990. And in all those years, immigration never exceeded 8.8% of population.

For the first 70 years of the USA (1790 to 1850), immigration constituted 2.61% of population on average in any decade. For the next 80 years (1860 to 1930), immigration raced at 13.7% on average in any decade. For the next 60 years (1940 to 1990) immigration clicked at a reasonable 6.8% on average in any decade. For the last two decades (2000, 2010) immigration ran at 12% a year. 

• THE BIG LIE. AMERICANS ARE A NATION OF IMMIGRANTS 

Jason:

You just think illegal immigrants are stealing jobs and money.

Me:

You don't even know what money is. You have no idea that you are living under a fiduciary system.

There is no money. Money is coined metal by weight and fineness. The Romans said so. It's their word.

Cash is bank credit circulating in perpetuity. Cash isn't money.Money can exist without banking. Cash requires banking. Legal tender cash requires both banking and enforcement agents of lawgivers, or that what most unthinking call government.

• ON CREDIT, MONEY, CURRENCY, INFLATION, PRICES, AND THE FEDERAL RESERVE
• AUSTRALIAN ECONOMIST STEVE KEEN CONFUSES CASH WITH MONEY. NO ONE SHOULD LISTEN TO ACADEMICIAN ECONOMISTS AND THEIR FALSE DOCTRINES.
• BITCOIN IS SOFTWARE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT. BITCOIN IS NOT LEGAL TENDER CASH.

Jason:

But he Austrian school of economics teaches against you. If you don't belong to one of the approved schools of economics, you can't be right.

Me:

Academia economics is wrong. Economics is a false dogma.  Academicians in the field of economics falsely attempt to explain the phenomena of commerce through a faulty lens of scarcity and utility and marginalism.

WHY IS THE ECONOMY SO HORRIBLE? BECAUSE ACADEMIA ECONOMICS IS FAKE.

The reality of commerce is far different. Commerce deals with the trade of property — right of ownership — in pursuit of profit.

Economics is wrong. It doesn't matter if someone is in the Cult of Keynes or like you, in the Cult of Mises. That one has wrong beliefs and so do you, Jason. What you believe is false, a mythology, the stuff of your cult.

Academia economics is mythology and fails to comport to reality. Academia economics, regardless of neoclassical school, fails to deal with the phenomena of trade — property and profits. Instead, academia economics focuses upon utility and scarcity, both of which have nothing to do with commerce.

The worst bit about contemporary economics is this: the field fails to find its basis in commercial banking and jurisprudence. Yet, the entire economy has as its basis commercial banking and jurisprudence.

Neoclassical economics is false dogma. It doesn't matter what school. Believers in economics as a field can't accurately describe commercial reality precisely because they don't have a science. They have conflicting ideas and false definitions.

Jason:

The Austrian School is the correct one.

Me:

The "Austrian School" was a school of neoclassical economics and thus arose from the same fallacies as all of the other neoclassical schools, which in turn arose from the classical fallacies of Smith and Ricardo.

It's unlikely that you know that at one time, the Austrian School was known as The Psychology School. The entire theory of the school was predicated on pseudo-scientific psychology never proven in reality and not needed at all to explain the trade of property in purchases and sales in the pursuit of profits.

There is no room for psychology in an accurate, authentic theory of commerce. An authentic theory gets predicated on property and profit. The application of psychology in the art of commerce is another field. That is called marketing.

The Austrian School has been defunct for decades upon decades. The founders of the school all died long ago. Menger, Böhm-Bawerk and von Wieser are all dead.

Jason:

I suggest you read Von Mises book.

Me:

Those connected with Mises.org go to great lengths to proclaim the Austrian School (and rightly, it’s the Austrian School of Neo-classical Economics, replete with many fallacies of Ricardo and Mills) as the one true school. They worship Mises in a cult erected to him by Lew Rockwell.

Mises wasn't really part of the Austrian School. And neither was his disciple Murray Rothbard, an American from New York City.

Mises earned a degree in law and didn't even work as an economics professor. NYU administrators let him teach but never paid Mises. A board of trustees member had to dig into his own pocket to give Mises private subsidy, in essence. Mises was little better than a sociologist.

Mises was a mere copycat. Mises lifted his economic thought from guys who preceded him by decades.

Mises spewed a silly, false theory around time preference to explain interest. Mises swallowed hard on a giant waste of time, the work of Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk. Even Carl Menger, the father of the Austrian school of Neoclassical Economics had this to say:

“The time will come when people will realize that Böhm-Bawerk’s theory is one of the greatest errors ever committed.” ~ Carl Menger

Mises did not understand banking, at all. In his lecture, Mises said, “The best proof that inflation, the increase in the quantity of money …” and thus Mises believed, wrongly, that an increase in the quantity of money is inflation. Mises could hold this false belief only if he did not understand banking, which is quite clear that he did not.

As well, Mises did not understand interest whatsoever. His “originary interest” amounts to off-the-deep-end foolery. Mises throws out the window the Law of Prices when it comes to interest and instead throws in some crazed false belief called originary interest as his driver.

Mises pushed a rather stupid, false theory on interest that idiots today parrot. Mises time preference theory of interest is quite wrong.

• INTEREST, CAPITALISTS AND FUTURISTIC TIME COPS

Both Mises and his disciple, Rothbard, were talking shop academicians who never worked in commercial enterprise in their lives. Mises and Rothbard made many errors because of being lifetime academicians neither ran any business much less a profitable one. Without proper entrepreneurial experience, Mises and Rothbard lacked referential experience to understand how capital works.

Rothbard and Mises suffered from a slew of false beliefs about commercial banking. Neither Rothbard nor von Mises understood commercial banking. Rothbard was paid by taxpayers and thus collected what amounted to high-paying welfare.

Rothbard was such an idiot that he believed there was double claims on deposits. Rothbard didn't understand commercial banking. There isn't any such double claims.

Anyone who knows about Commercial Law knows that a banker is a trader who buys cash and debt by selling bank credits. In a purchase and sale, a customer, known as a depositor sells property in cash or receivables to a banker and buys property in bank credits.

With property in bank credits, the bank customer has a right of action to demand an amount of cash from his banker at a future date. Evidences of such right includes checking account bank statements and passbook savings books. In commercial banking law, a deposit isn't a depositum, but actually a mutuum in law of a purchase and sale of cash for deposits.

In a deposit transaction, which is truly a mutuum, so-called depositors buy bank credits and sell cash, other bank credits or debt in a purchase and sale. Depositors get deposits as evidence of their right of action against bankers when in a purchase and sale, selling their cash, other bank credits or debt.

There are no double claims. Bankers own deposits. Depositors own rights of action.

Jason:

I don't care what you say. We're right. It's all on Mises.org.

Me:

Mises.org is a little more than a superstitious cult. Because of fear and anguish over their lives, many look for someone they can claim is authority to explain why things are the way they are. Such ones need a pontiff, a Wizard of Oz.

For Miseans in the Cult of Mises, Mises is their wizard, their pontiff.

Jason:

Your policy is fundamentally anti-labor and anti-poor people.

Me:

First, I don't have a policy. Second, the truth of what I say is free-markets capitalism.

What you advocate is anti-worker, anti-citizen, pro-criminal and pro-crony politics.

You support property-destroying illegal activity. Hiring illegals is no different than cheating on the claimed weight of content in products.

Worse, advocating for hiring illegals is akin to advocating for having your unprofitable work subsidized by others. Enterprisers who can't break even unless they hire illegals are inefficient and wasting resources. They are bringing to market products that not enough want to warrant profits.

Those who don't want to trade property honestly in pursuit of profits and who can't enjoy otherwise higher rates of profits hire illegals.

Jason:

Obviously, you are not an Austrian. Neo-Keynesian? Monetarist? Classical?

Me:

Unlike you, I advocate for free markets, free enterprise and free individuals. You want illegals and crony politics to reign supreme.

Jason:

You are just a collectivist!

Me: 

It's laughable that you accuse me of being who you are — a collectivist. You want everyone else to subsidize your illegal aliens and in so doing, subsidize your faulty business.

Jason:

You can't have unrestricted immigration but you must eliminate welfare.

Me:

And now you have agreed with me. Thanks for playing.

The converse of that is, you can't have unrestricted immigration and welfare. Illegal aliens are engaged in illegal, unrestricted immigration.

I have said it above, both ways.

——

Jason believes in hiring illegal aliens. Jason believes that decreeing anyone illegal interferes in his right to hire whom he pleases. Jason doesn't understand jurisprudence so Jason doesn't know what right means. 

Through his stupidity, Jason has advocated for a collapse in capitalism. 

Most capital gets bought on credit with expected rates of return. Most capital gets used for more than one year. When working age population suddenly increases, wages fall and thus prices fall. The returns on extant capital fails to materialize.

If there are not increasing returns to capital, no one will invest in capital. Without capital there are no wages. Without ever increasing returns, there can be no advance in true wages.

Massively increasing the prime working age population, roughly 18-54, both depresses wages and leads to a capital death spiral. When the prime working age labor growth rate exceeds the capital spending rate, wages fall. Falling wages necessitates a fall in prices. A fall in prices causes a fall on the return to capital.

When wages fall for everyone, prices must fall. Falling prices on extant capital bought on credit require adjustment by enterprisers to maintain their return. They cut workers.

When workers get cut, there are fewer who can buy. Fewer bidders can bid lower to win products. Prices fall gain.

A new round of falling prices leads to a new round of less capital as returns aren't there. If there are not increasing returns to capital, no one buys capital. No one goes into business to lose. The economy goes into a capitalism death spiral.

To understand this more: SOPHIE'S CHOICE OF CAPITAL OR LABOR. A FREE-MARKETS LIBERTARIAN BECOMES AN ANTI-CAPITALIST AND PERPETUATES AN ECONOMICS MYTH

All should favor free immigration, but then also should favor the end of welfare and income taxation. You can't have the former without the latter.

Read more ...

ANOTHER FAUX LIBERTARIAN SAYS, "IF YOU CAN'T BEAT 'EM, BECOME A PROGRESSIVE"

Today, Mish from Global Economic Trend Analysis answers a reader who asked as a libertarian, should he take welfare food stamps (SNAP) provided by the Department of Health and Human Services, an agency of the U.S. Congress. The reader describes himself as a trust-fund baby who has the income to pay, but because of law loopholes, he qualifies for both food stamps and Medicaid.



To answer the dilemma-ridden libertarian, Mish turned to his often-mentioned friend, Pater Tenebrarum. Tenebrarum said that if the government has taken your taxes, you have every right to receive some restitution and that if you believe you have been robbed, then signing up and taking welfare is clawing back some of what has been looted from you. Tenebrarum claims this to be the "correct libertarian viewpoint."

Pater Tenebrarum doesn't seem to understand jurisprudence and thus libertarianism.

Taxes are an unearned share of profits levied by politicians. Where there is no profit, there can be no taxes. Unlike investors who gain return because they have traded property in cash and credit in the past for cash and credit now, politicians have not invested in anyone or in any firm. Through law, politicians have dispensed with the need to invest in hopes of a gain.

Long ago, the founders of the current USA, through the second constitution gave themselves the right and imposed the duty on anyone to pay taxes. In theory, Americans of that time agreed to the second constitution through their contitutional convention representatives.

The constitution has given politicians the right of action to collect sums from anyone who  trades property in pursuit of profit. Everyone who trades property in pursuit of profit has liability for taxation. The constitution has given politicians the right to decree the manner of reckoning levy and has imposed the duty of anyone to accept that reckoning.


Always, in jurisprudence, property means right of ownership and not what is owned. This must be kept in your mind.

Politicians gain property in the cash and bank credits acquired from taxation. It is from this property that politicians now have funds.

Through law, give property in their funds to some based upon rules politicians set. Likewise, politicians impose duty upon to give up their property in their funds. Such property, which is the right of ownership, includes all kinds of welfare programs like Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, Section 8, Pell, TANF, SNAP, and countless others like subsidized loans to veterans and so on.

Libertarianism boils down to liberty over duty and right. In short, libertarianism means living by fewer laws and thus fewer rights and duties. Adding ever more rights and duties is how you lessen freedom and expand political control over everyone through legal means.

If Mish's reader accepts welfare, he agrees to the system of less liberty, of more rights and duties. Thus, Mish's reader goes against libertarianism.

Mish's reader agrees to have Congress tax all at their reckoning. Mish's reader agrees to men of Congress running perpetual fiscal year deficits that accumulate into massive debt. Mish's reader agrees that Fed Res bankers should buy that debt, putting into circulation more cash and bank credits, which reduces the buying power and thus the living standard of workers.

In short, Mish's reader agrees to liberal progressivism.

Read more ...

REASONOIDS OF REASON.COM, AMERICA'S CRYPTO-REPUBLICANS

"Imagine, if you will, a country in which government ... embraces things such as gay marriage, drug legalization, and immigration." ~ Nick Gillespie, Leader of Reason.com Reasonoid "Libertarians"

The marketers behind Reason.com and Reason TV, promote Reason.com as "the libertarian magazine of Free Minds and Free Markets." Well known for his 1970s retro TV Fonzie look, as the editor-in-chief of both, Gillespie stands as the living embodiment of all things Reason.




Gillespie advocates for more laws — for more rights and duties — when he champions legalization of gay marriage, drugs, and illegal aliens. Gillespie advocates the stance of progressive liberals and not authentic libertarians. Thus, Gillespie advocates for less liberty. In short, Gillespie cannot be libertarian by definition nor can his followers.

Someone should tell the Reasonoids of Reason.com truth. They are Liberal Progressives falling somewhere between antiquated Rockefeller Republicans and the more recent Clinton New Democrats.

They are not Libertarians. They have yet to awaken to this truth about themselves.

Reasonoids suffer from the equivalent of Stockholm syndrome and thus they defend their cult leader Gillespie. Gillespie has conned his many followers into a cult of crypto Republican progressivism.

In jurisprudence, which is what we're talking about here, liberty means that realm where the law (politicians) is content to leave you alone. Where politicians make laws, there are duties and rights. Always, there can be no right without a corresponding duty and thus no duty without a corresponding right.

Libertarianism boils down to liberty over duty and right. In short, libertarianism means living by fewer laws and thus fewer rights and duties. Adding ever more rights and duties is how you lessen freedom and expand political control over everyone through legal means!

Libertarianism is not anarchism, however. The absence of law in the presence of government is liberty, not anarchy. Anarchy means no government at all. It means without (a) an overlord (archy). In anarchy, anything goes.

Regardless of the cause, any authentic libertarian opposes reduction of liberty and the expansion of rights and duties as the means to fix so-called societal ills. As the authentic libertarian position is liberty over law, the authentic libertarian stance is to rid marriage licensing as a legal determinant for anything, including welfare and taxation. The authentic libertarian stance is to decriminalize drugs. The authentic libertarian stance is to decriminalize illegal immigration. The authentic libertarian stance is to end welfare and subsidy.

More rights and duties means less liberty. If you are for more rights and duties, you cannot  be a libertarian. By supporting more rights and duties, you advocate for bigger government. Most likely, you are free-markets liberal who doesn't like the Democratic Party.

Being an anti-war, pothead, pro-gay champion fails to make anyone libertarian. All the so-called libertarians who chat up on Reason in favor of legalized gay marriage, and legalized drugs are little more than libertines championing the expansion of the size and scope of government. They do so precisely because they are clueless about jurisprudence and all of the attendant concepts of rights, duty, power, liabilities and disabilities.

Giving X authority to decide duties and rights stands opposed to the non-aggression principle (NAP) and thus libertarianism. Granting rights and imposing duties is the anti-thesis of liberty and thus libertarianism. Expanding duties and rights is the polar opposite of liberty and libertarianism.

Anyone who can reason straight can see the bizarro absurdity of these:

"It became necessary to destroy the town to save it." ~ unnamed U.S. officer on Ben Tre, Vietnam War

"I’ve abandoned free market principles to save the free market system." ~ George W. Bush

and

"It became necessary to abandon principles for liberty by supporting expanding rights and duties enforced by government through X in order to save liberty." ~ Typical Clueless American

where X is Obamacare, Gay Marriage, Permanent Residency to Illegal Aliens, and many other pet causes.

Thus, the straight-reasoner should see the equal absurdity of this:

"It became necessary to abandon principles for liberty by supporting expanding rights and duties enforced by government through Obamacare in order to save liberty." ~ Typical Liberal

and this:

"It became necessary to abandon principles for liberty by supporting expanding rights and duties enforced by government through gay marriage in order to save liberty." ~ Typical Pro Gay Marriage Reasonoid

Legalization of gay marriage, drugs, and illegal aliens is the stance of meddlers who believe in forcing individuals to behave according to their Utopoian visions. In America, those meddlers go by the moniker of progressive liberals.

Federalized gay marriage decreases liberty. Federalized gay marriage increases duty and rights. Federalized gay marriage increases to whom authority is granted and to whom capacity is granted.

Gays now have authority to order people to associate with them in commerce. Gays now have capacity to marry in order to secure welfare from politicians.

Authentic libertarians know better. Every victory against liberty no matter how big or small nonetheless is a victory against liberty. Every authentic libertarian opposes marriage licensing as a determinant in legal relationship. From a taxpayer perspective, this one is a huge victory against liberty.

No one should misconstrue the foregoing as an attack on gays, on drug users or on illegal aliens. It's not.

Facts remain. Marriage licenses, passports and prohibition are legal fictions created politicians who impose duties and rights.

Politician-sanctioning of behavior fails to increase freedom. Politician-sanctioning of behavior increases officialdom and their power.

Rather than walking into Utopia, incessant meddling keeps everyone in perpetual Dystopia. We're living in the 21st Century. The goal should be to have the least governance as needed rather than the relentless pursuit of the most governance tolerable.

Reason.com boosts a progressive Republican agenda. In short, Reasonoids stand with the feel-good progressive liberalism of the Democrats — legal gay marriage, legalized illegal immigrants, legalized drugs — as well as with the pro big business, anti-welfare side of the Republicans.

Gillispe and the Reasonoids ought to join Democrats or Republicans since the latter are all about rights and duties. They love telling people what to do and they love granting privileges masquerading as rights in furthering their efforts to gain a permanent lock-hold on power.

Reason.com has nothing to do with authentic libertarianism, except masquerading with the word libertarianism.

Jurisprudence. Learn it.

Read more ...

ANOTHER FREE RED PILL TO SWALLOW AND FREE YOUR MIND

I have yet to explore voluntaryist.com. That taxation is theft looks so appealing.

Read more ...

WALK LEFT SIDE, SAFE. WALK RIGHT SIDE, SAFE. WALK MIDDLE, SOONER OR LATER GET SQUISH JUST LIKE GRAPE.

This meme so true! Of course the real political spectrum of actual governments the earth over goes like this:

Communism ↔ Socialism ↔ Syndicalism ↔ Oligopolism ↔ Fascism

Bureaucrats dominate with socialism. The troika of bureaucrats, unionists and oligopolists try to co-exist with syndicalism and oligopolists dominate with oligopolism.

Militarism is present always along the spectrum. Unchecked totalitarianism pushes toward the extreme and fosters a rise in militarism at those extremes.

The military dominates the extremes of communism and fascism, partnering with bureaucrats under communism and oligopolists under fascism to maintain control against the people.

Fascists amount to military oligopolists. Communists amount to military socialists. That is what distinguishes fascists on the right and communists on the left, at the ends.

Most politics in most countries ends up being a tug-of-war between the middle three. That is why governments never stop growing. Like bad layers of paint covering over beautifully designed wood, laws accumulate from each preceding group.

In the USA, the backbone of the political spectrum is corporatism, which means living by organizing into groups on the basis of allied interests and seeking codified (legalized) status and privilege for being a member of that group. Most often organization arises around these: academic, agricultural, industrial, ethnic, labor and military.

Under corporatism, you, the individual do not count. You get forced to join a group. Otherwise, you don't get any privileges such as welfare or subsidies.

So it is funny in an odd way when lefties accuse libertarians of being on the right and when oligopolists accuse anarchists of being on the left. Libertarianism and Anarchism are not even of even on this spectrum!

Except for all the greedy who want to gain living standard without earning it by seeking welfare and subsidies from politicians they favor, the rest of us want to be free.

Nothing shall change until you decide to jump from the spectrum and embrace this as you mantra:

Minimal government. Maximal respect.

Those who approve of force to spur on involuntary action lack good arguments. All the left vs right bickering is bickering over whose brand of theft mollifies the masses better.

"Walk left side, safe. Walk right side, safe. Walk middle, sooner or later get squish just like grape. Here, karate, same thing. Either you karate do 'yes' or karate do 'no.' You karate do 'guess so.'" ~ Miyagi in the Karate Kid

Read more ...

LIBERTARIAN SOCIALISM?! WTF?! FAIL!

So I came across this ridiculous Wikipedia entry titled Libertarian socialism. Mankind has become intellectually degenerate if people can believe a false belief mired in contradiction as libertarian socialism.

Socialism means living by a council of bureaucrats who tell others who gets what and often who must do what. Socialism is a means of control over individuals. Socialism isn't a feel-good doctrine that helps any woman or any man who is a subject of those bureaucrats.

Property means right of ownership, a bundle of rights — Jus Possidendi (right for possession), Jus Utendi (right for using), Jus Abutendi (right for destroying, alienating), Jus Vindicandi (right for recovery when found in the wrongful possession of another. Property isn't a thing.

Property is oneself being right in the pursuit of pleasure to possess a thing, destroy a thing or recover a thing stolen by another who treads over one's rights.

It's impossible to have government lording over people and defining that government as libertarian and socialist simultaneously.

All rights arise from the inherent self, regardless of the presence of anyone else, much less a government.

• Anyone is right to want to live.
• Anyone is right to want to live without an overlord.
• Anyone is right to want to pursue that which gives that one pleasure.

Those are rights. You have them because you're alive, not because some humans gang up, call themselves government and grant such to you.

Saying "private property" is redundant. Owning that which you create is property. Property means right of ownership. Exchanging that which you own for something else owned by another is economics. It's a private matter between two parties. 


Creating something, which is what you own, is private production. Selling your property in something, which becomes wealth in a purchase and sale, to gain property in for something else, which also becomes wealth, is trade, also said as commerce. It is authentic economics.

Read more ...