From WHAT’S REALLY REACTIONARY?

In the 80s, the women’s corps of the Left’s “Statist ‘intellectuals’” seized the term feminism (like civil rights) to label their own doctrines, which did indeed “deny mind, independence and individuality.” “Feminism,” in the hands of collectivists (who, again, need collectives), was deformed into an ideology that assigns gender the same function that class and race serve in Marxism and Hitlerism, respectively. Very consciously aping the former, these “Second Wave” (AKA “gender” or “difference”) feminists posited sexual identity as the “structure” that “engenders” (a jeu de mots that they evidently found endlessly delightful) all “superstructures.” But the most strikingly reactionary aspect of all this was not the resurgence of sexism per se, but the resurgence of traditional sexism, e.g., the exact same connection of gender to “rationality” and “emotionalism.” The superficially “new” feature — the factor that makes something Leftist (and “revolutionary” and “progressive”) — was that while the old misogynists considered the former a “masculine” virtue and the latter a “feminine” vice, these misandrists valuated the former as a “phallocentric” evil and the latter as a “feminist” good. This polylogism of feminist sexism is one of the many commonalities with Marxist classism and Nazi racism. Too obviously, no one need fear even a trace of androgyny from these apostles of sexual Manichaeism. (The only gender differences these feminists denied were those that could actually be verified by science, a rival — and predictably “androcratic” — authority.)

The logic it seems to me is everyone values himself higher than other people do. When they are not given what they think they deserve, they assume it must be bias based on an attribute or attributes. And they are right. But it’s usually some other attribute other than the one they THINK it’s based on. Black people think they are prejudged on the color of their skin when it is often times based on being ignorant (in a particular case). Women think they are being unfairly held down because they are a woman when much of the time it’s simply a bad attitude (again in particular cases). Greatly sub-mediocre people who believe themselves to be put upon are put upon indeed, but for reasons other than what they are willing to accept as the cause.

So at every level of society (inter- and intra-), in every association of men, there are people on the “inside” and people on the “outside”. Those on the outside who THINK they ought to be on the inside will curry their anger over the afront, and the incorrect cause they think is keeping them out. When enough people think they are excluded, and find some common anger with others, they will endeavor to use Force to make things “right”. And are nothing more than a collection of odds-n-sods who, if they really spent time analyzing their causes of anger, will find they aren’t as in sync as they think they are within their movement. That’s why as time passes every movement tends to splinter.

And to me that is what history is. The struggle for Power to Force others to recognize sub-mediocre people as not only not inferior but superior, and since they cannot truly express themselves they resort to “you just don’t THINK correctly. If you did you’d see my manifest genius, but you don’t, so I will Force you to abide whether your mind is right or not”. This plan has been used by Kings and Czars and Chairmen and Fuehrers since the dawn of man.

So there is no dialectic, or some notion of advancing through stages, it is simply the endless changeover of the “new boss same as the old boss” because once one group of mediocre thugs gains control they become the new target for the next batch of half-asses. Those who are truly gifted engage in endeavors outside of political thuggery and are the ones who have advanced us in any meaningful way- technology, art, science, etc. And for slightly-above-mediocre grunts such as myself (been a B+ character my whole life, on average) I think the path to prosperity is to recognize intellects manifestly superior to my own and let them do as they will, peacefully – instead of grinding axes about my lot in life and supporting thugs. I will prosper as best I can, left to my own devices. Those less “fortunate” than me, physically or mentally, I will support through actions and behaviors I reserve to myself, my way. Unfortunately we are now at the high point of being in the crossfire of conflicting mediocre thugs and their sub-mediocre populist supporters.

GP,

I think Mr. Tucker is only writing about Marxian class theory and not Marx’s historical determinism. I do believe that Prof. Hoppe is a big fan of Mises’ Theory and History (http://mises.org/th.asp) and would insist that human values are subjective, changing, and unknowable until an individual acts. Hoppe might say that there cannot be deterministic behavior and hence, no historical forces- never mind historical forces aiming inevitably at particular ends.

Oh, this is truly rich. It’s the state! It’s the state!

Once again, in the pursuit of liberty, narrow rules are established on what is the “correct” way to think.

Here’s the new CEO of AIG demonstrating universal logic. It’s so refreshing to know that libertarians can embrace the universal logic of, say, liberals. And now Marx!

How neat to know that exploitation is not exploitation if the exploited signed up for it. We can just ignore the part about necessity.

Do you know why you MUST help those less fortunate? Because they have to smell your garbage. Because they have to educate your children when you don’t want to. They have to sit on the jury when you commit a crime. They have to pull over to let your ambulance pass when you have a heart attack. They have to pay for the fireman killed while putting out your house fire that happened because you didn’t want to install smoke detectors. They have to pay a higher premium on fire insurance because of your house fire too.

They can’t escape you, and you can’t escape them. Until your footprint is zero, and you do not impact them at all, then you are joined at the hip with them.

You can pay for the security to keep a boot on their necks, or you can chip in for the social safety net that makes all great nations great. Either way, you are going to pay. It is delusional to think otherwise.

I don’t understand why the persistent belief that the state can be done away with. Another state will form just as fast. As noble as the intent of the constitution was, we see it corrupted over time to the point we find ourselves in today. What did that? Was it self-interest by politicians? If so, who served them? Was it the capitalist machine, or was it the people whom they were supposed to serve?

What we are seeing is what happens when the capitalist machine takes hold of the reigns of power. If the government went away tomorrow, the machine would quickly form another one – probably without so many rights spelled out.

Thanks, K, for the laugh.

Or was K really being satirical…hmmm

So, it seems you may have an inkling that it’s the landed elite who formed this government. When they try to start another one you’re going to buy their new scam too?

No. I’m the last person buy it. I’m saying there is no way to prevent it. I can’t stand the government, mainly because it has corrupted the actual utility of what it is intended for.

I have no problem with chipping in to fast track things the free market is slow to let emerge. The conundrum is that the utility of authority making decisions is so easily undercut by special interests.

There is a useful roll for authority. That is certainly true in matters of justice, but it is also true in other areas. The space program would be too much for the free market to have agreed upon all at once. It required a central effort to collect and allocate resources and the creation of a plan with large scope.

I don’t even want to get into the value of the space program. Weather satellites alone have vastly improved efficiency and raised the quality of life, and indeed saved lives.

Nearly all the big things that the US can chalk up as a high achievement will find the roots in government, and that includes providing the infrastructure to facilitate commerce.

The problem is, the power the government can bring to bear on a problem is so great, that the desire to control and manipulate the government by those that have the means to do so is insatiable.

Politicians are so conflicted with their mandate of public service and their indebtedness to their sponsors, that they are reduced to lying pimps. Uber-simple solutions that have virtually no bad side effects are ferociously fought against, and have virtually no chance of happening. Things like public campaign financing.

It is inconceivable that a level playing field could ever be allowed. Right now health care is being played out by one side trying to make secret deal of appeasement just for a little relief, and the other side drilling fear and misinformation into the public to maintain a status quo that is surely unsustainable.

It’s all about the large-scale corporatist fleecing of public resources. The largest screamers of Socialist! are the companies that have their hands in our pockets and are using their purchasing power to purchase the government to make sure their interests are enhanced at the expense of everyone else.

Am I wrong?

Even in a perfectly well behaved and “honorable” free market, it is a fallacy that the emergent yield of the market is always efficient. If that were the case, all innovation would come straight from the market before anything else. It would mean coherency would be detected in the signals, and bubbles would never form. It would mean overcapacity would not happen. The free market is nothing more than a drunken sailor bouncing off the walls as he stumbles down the hall. That’s fine, as long as he gets to the end. There is nothing wrong with helping him stand upright – that’s not socialism. It is, however, wrong to kick his legs out from under him and roll him for his wallet, which is exactly what “central planning” is doing these days.

Take a look at the trading volume of SPY today. The volume at 4:10 (after hours) was higher than the volume all day long. It’s an ETF of the S&P500. It’s not like there was some special piece of news about a company, so why couldn’t the dominant volume trade 15 minutes earlier into theoretically more favorable liquidity?

Everything these days takes on the appearance of a puppet show. There is no free market. The decision was made to go into Iraq, and the “free market” was going in with it, as long as you think of the free market as the companies with the no-bid contracts awarded by the government.

Paulson going to congress with the less-than-rosy message that life in America was going to end in a few days unless twice the amount of money that is spent on the military is handed over to him. He even had the drawing on the napkin to prove it. Most of that napkin dealt with his indemnity.

The ratings agencies were not allowed to look at any of the loans backing the instruments that were forbidden from being regulated. Somehow they got AAA ratings.

Am I being paranoid? Am I a jealous outsider? Honest to God, I’m not. I just don’t see how anything is going to improve in this corporatist model. I’m all for capitalism. I want to stuff and mount my largest competitor and his assistant on my wall as a trophy, but I’m not willing to do anything other than make a superior product and advertise it, or die trying. That would put me at a disadvantage if my competitor starts purchasing influence, and it would allow him to downgrade the quality of his product. He would then go on to show an increase in the average wage he pays his workers by laying off the lowest paid ones, because that’s the kind of society we are angling for.

Insane bonuses being handed out for failing because the recipients scream Contract! That’s fine, but nobody for the government (who works for us) is willing to go over the contracts and point out all the places where they broke clause themselves. Surely they must have taken home a pencil, or expensed a hooker, and what’s fair is fair. You want to cry contract, I’ll show you contract, but you are not going to like it. That’s what all the small words are for. It’s so we don’t have to do things that hurt us.

Bush took Friedman and stood him on his head. He said he would get government out of business, but what he really did was open up the government to be used as a tool by business in any way they saw fit. Want less meat inspectors? No problem. Less pollution controls? Let’s call it the Clear Skies Act. It is not fair. Why pay taxes? I want benefit from my taxes, not punishment. I knew Obama was not going to kill business, but I had hoped he would try and level the playing field.

There is no such thing as a power vacuum, but we had checks and balances until we didn’t. It’s a perversion that the 1st amendment is doing us in by equating money donations to free speech. It’s a perversion to consider a corporation a “person”. Corporations cannot go to jail when they do something wrong, but it’s not my car that goes to jail when it runs over some kid. It’s the one behind the wheel that does.

Google the term “Citi fined”, and see what comes up. The only conclusion that can be made is that Citi is a habitual criminal organization with no possible hope of rehabilitation. They are the worse kind of citizen in society. Indeed, the most crime-infested place on earth is Wall Street. They could empty Rikers Island into the place, and class it up.

Whew!

(don’t make me go on…

“There is a useful roll for authority. That is certainly true in matters of justice, but it is also true in other areas. The space program would be too much for the free market to have agreed upon all at once. It required a central effort to collect and allocate resources and the creation of a plan with large scope.”

If something is too much for the ‘free market’ to bear at all once, then why is that? It’s because all the individual members decided, for themselves, that the benefits do not outweigh the costs.

Certainly, they could have been short-sighted, lazy and generally dumb – but that’s how people are.

If you place your faith in “a central effort to collect and allocate resources and the creation of a plan with large scope” you best be ready to approve of it’s consequences.

This method of operation has been favored since the pharaohs who also “required a central effort to collect and allocate resources and the creation of a plan with large scope” to build their pyramids and irrigation ditches.

Certainly great works, no doubt about it. How about the cost though? Untold amount of slave labor went into them. Same as today, except now state is using more layers of indirection. You can now pay with money instead of manual labor, but you will pay all the same.

“I don’t even want to get into the value of the space program. Weather satellites alone have vastly improved efficiency and raised the quality of life, and indeed saved lives.”

Uh, so did the irrigation ditches no doubt. Number of lives saved compared to number of slaves killed is not an excuse. The greater good be damned for the lie it is.

“Nearly all the big things that the US can chalk up as a high achievement will find the roots in government, and that includes providing the infrastructure to facilitate commerce.”

Commerce tends to facilitate its own infrastructure… as you’ll see.

“The problem is, the power the government can bring to bear on a problem is so great, that the desire to control and manipulate the government by those that have the means to do so is insatiable.

Politicians are so conflicted with their mandate of public service and their indebtedness to their sponsors, that they are reduced to lying pimps. Uber-simple solutions that have virtually no bad side effects are ferociously fought against, and have virtually no chance of happening. Things like public campaign financing.”

See, that’s commerce facilitating it’s own infrastructure for you. Least effort, most profit.

Do away with state power and it’s no longer the least effort buy more legal slave labor.

And yes, I do think you’re wrong. Greater good and central planning be damned!

In contrast to the free-market order it seeks to succeed, Heilbroner acknowledges, the People’s State of Marx

will require [vast] authority over economic activity. The huge productive apparatus of contemporary industrial society … [and t]he nature of the production process itself … will have to be redesigned, if the work experience of socialism is to differ from that of capitalism. And of course the distribution of income must undergo radical change….

All this requires the use of political command…. [I]t requires the curtailment of the central economic freedom of bourgeois society, namely the right of individuals to own, and therefore to withhold if they wish, the means of production, including their own labor. The full preservation of this bourgeois freedom would place the attainment of socialism at the mercy of property owners who could threaten to deny their services to society [i.e., the socialist government] — and again I refer to their labor, not just to material resources — if their terms were not met.

There we have it — forwarding to the socialist future requires only the STOP-REWIND-EJECT of capitalist history, i.e., the “curtailment” of capitalism’s economic and political freedoms. Essentially, socialism will be a resurrection of pre-liberalism and one of its most odious institutions. Recall that socialists have always condemned capitalism for its “wage slavery” — if you don’t work, you don’t eat. And under socialism … what? Everyone will be fed, even if no one chooses to work? What happened to the stupefying insight (known to “every child”) that such a society would collapse? But socialism will not allow any individuals “to withhold if they wish … their own labor,” much less feed them if they do. The real socialist alternative to “wage slavery” is, not the introduction of “substantive rights” to basic necessities, but the reinstitution of outright chattel slavery — with the socialists themselves cracking the whip. There is nothing new (“revolutionary”) here, nor anything that, again, makes much sense by its own alleged framework. How is something a “bourgeois freedom” if it can be exercised by — or denied to — the working class? And what of the conflict between “workers and owners,” which is supposedly directing this entire stage of historical evolution? If now human labor also constitutes “property,” who isn’t a property owner? Even more to the point, if the human body constitutes a “means of production,” who isn’t property himself? So what is socialism to any man but the real “thing that commands him as property,” property that is now owned by the State? And what is the Manifesto‘s call for the “[a]bolition of private property” but a call for the abolition of private everything? Yet again, any attempt to negotiate the Marxian maze runs smack into a wall of totalitarianism, i.e., the maximization of pre-liberal despotism. And with all of this, “progressive” rhetoric clothes — obscures — reactionary policy.

FROM HERE

I can’t stand the government, mainly because it has corrupted the actual utility of what it is intended for.
This is a common idea, but unfortunately, it has the situation backwards. Government was intended to give some people power over other people, and only over time have people tried to justify government as existing to help its citizens (or more specifically, to protect their rights). Since government wasn’t really created for the purpose of protecting rights, trying shoehorn it into that purpose becomes very problematic.

Do you know why you MUST help those less fortunate? Because they have to smell your garbage. Because they have to educate your children when you don’t want to. They have to sit on the jury when you commit a crime. They have to pull over to let your ambulance pass when you have a heart attack. They have to pay for the fireman killed while putting out your house fire that happened because you didn’t want to install smoke detectors. They have to pay a higher premium on fire insurance because of your house fire too.
And what better way to help the less fortunate is there, than to not force them to pay for costs and responsibilities that they haven’t incurred, and to pay them a price they are willing to accept for providing goods and services that we ask of them? Government isn’t the solution to this problem, it is, in large part, the cause of this problem.
It’s one thing to say that government is a long-standing, traditional institution that will not go away easily or willingly. It is entirely different to say that it is some kind of necessary evil and that we can never be free of it. I’m willing to accept the former statement, but not the latter statement.

An important point to make is that, of course, people do not always think logically. Our emotions and personal experiences do play a role in how we perceive the world. But because education in logic is no longer done there is a tendency to mistake point-of-view as evidence for polylogism. Witness Justice Sotomayor’s assertion that as a Hispanic woman from the working class, she has “unique insight.” It’s ridiculous to suggest that she has a different logic because she’s a Hispanic woman with working-class origins, but not that she has different perspectives and biases.

It also bears mentioning that if polylogist theory were true, the very idea of the United States government would either be impossible to conceive or impossible to implement. To paraphrase G.K. Chesterton, if individuality did not exist there would be no collectivism.

Government isn’t the solution to this problem, it is, in large part, the cause of this problem.

I think I did not articulate my position well. I was merely point out by example that there have been beneficial rolls the government played in a benign way. Again: telecommunications, etc.

What I should say with emphasis, but didn’t because I see it as a given, is that there is no alternative of not having a government. It simply will not happen. It is human nature to organize into groups. Groups will vie for power. Some will say things others like. They will promise things they can’t deliver, and the unwashed masses will eat it up.

It’s not a matter of getting everyone to think in terms of no government. Perfectly rational people who might even have been conditioned to hate the concept of a government will have to be made secure. People who feel as if they are in danger of falling between the cracks will not fade away quietly, especially if they have a family. They will make a hell of a racket if they think they cannot afford to educate their child, or buy medicine for their wife.

It’s not that people look to the government as mother, people will make their own government if forced into it.

Not everyone can be wealthy. It doesn’t work. There needs to exist a potential to get any work done. The wealthy need all those people who fill barstools and church pews, just as they need employment from the wealthy. Not everyone can be an industrious business owner – owners would never get anything done. You don’t build an auto plant to run yourself.

Given that scenario, and the fact that most of the population will be workers, great pains must be taken to ensure this largest segment of the population is stable and secure.

The only countries that have attained the enlightened state of not having a government suffer from things like machete wounds, and distended bellies.

There seems to be a consensus that at least some rudimentary form of government must exist for common defense, resolving disputes, and keeping the peace. This rudimentary government should be paid for by every citizen to assist in the notion that it is impartial.

Given that, is it so difficult to see that it is the best way to facilitate many of the other needs of society? I know a woman who has a child with spina bifida and encephalitis. The young father took one look and split years ago. What is she supposed to do? What about a blind person?

The charity thing is B.S. It reduces people who can’t easily beg to beggars. Something has to be done with these people, and the cheap and dignified way is for everyone to chip in a little and help out. When I say cheap, I mean it removes the uncertainty of harm to society from the actions of a desperate person. It’s unreasonable to expect someone to watch a loved one suffer. They will act.

If you agree there might be a roll to play for a rudimentary government to collect and disburse funds to assist those in need, then we are making progress.

Now what about the rest?

Can I dump my garbage on your lawn? Can I open up an explosives factory next to your house? If so, should safety inspections be required, or do you trust me? Can I dump the sludge in a river? Can I sell your children cigarettes that say right on the pack that they will make them healthy and popular? Can I start a medical school that graduates PhD’s after 1 month of study?

If not a government, what do you call the authority that will work this stuff out?

Some of you are calling me misguided, and maybe I’m stupid, but I can’t envision the absence of an arbiter. I can envision a neutral arbiter, and I can envision a nightmare.

Ever since Reagan and the Bush’s started expanding government to serve one class… that of corporations, I have noticed a social drifting, and a sort of fevered, desperate behavior of the government.

If the free market is the solution, then why are so many large corporations doing so poorly? They have had every benefit extended to them, and they have sought out the cheapest labor, yet they are dropping like flies. Who would have thought GE, and their BBB credit rating, could be had for $14 bucks a share? Nearly all the iconic American companies are teetering, or even gone.

It started before they all became socialist… or reverse socialist, or whatever. That’s fairly new. They are just calling in their markers, and something is making the government respond, even though it’s the worst thing it could do.

It’s not socialism that is going to do us in. It’s zombies, and stasis, and cronyism, and deceit, and corporatism. I’m going by observation, not speculation or theory. Purely empirical here.

It is this flirtation with polylogism, and not the more reaching charge of bigotry, that should raise enough solid warning flags to keep her out of any job requiring robes.

I find that silly. To disqualify someone on a nuance of speech would quickly expose a bias on the part of the disqualifier. They would have to apply the same standard without knowing the intended meaning of the utterance. Anyone who uttered, “I think…” would have to be disqualified.

The use of qualifiers to me indicate a withholding of blanket judgement – just what you would want in a justice. Her Wise Latina comment, without context, looks poor. In the context of addressing a Latina audience, it smacks of boosterism, or if I wanted to be kind, it smacks of pride. I can’t get bigotry from it.

In terms of work ethic, if she only writes 2 opinions from the bench, she will have doubled the output of Clarence Thomas. Parse him, and you will see a few questionable statements.

Michael, I thoroughly agree the government we have is an overbearing useless monstrosity. Rather than filling the roll that it could fill to make a great country – that of impartial arbiter, it is actively causing grave damage to America.

I have said a million times that a simple, incremental step can go a huge way toward slowing the damage, and that is public campaign finance, with no loopholes.

And yes, regulations are out of hand. They are so bad now, that there are regulations that actually prohibit the regulation of dangerous and opaque derivatives.

Our government is Dr. Strangelove and 1984 together, and I may as well throw in Idiocracy.

K Ackermann,

Re my Sotomayor comment. I had already established the lack of context and provable bigotry in her quote. So what is your argument?

It was Rush Limbaugh, I could of mentioned, calling Sotomayor a racist. But Rush was only at the head of a chorus.

@Fallon, I may have jumped the gun, and for that I do apologise. I saw the last part of your comment, and that is what I commented on.

I have a lot of activity going on around me, and I’m lousy at multitasking. I should have taken the time to read your entire post carefully.

P.S. I think Rush is biased.

I have said a million times that a simple, incremental step can go a huge way toward slowing the damage, and that is public campaign finance, with no loopholes.
I don’t really see how public campaign finance will make any significant change to our government. While it would presumably minimize the influence of special interests, power would simply be peddled in some other form. Assuming the politicians and bureaucrats didn’t bias the system in some way. Furthermore, it won’t change the fundamental nature of the government or how it operates, special interests or not. The only real answer is to not legally give power to some people over other people. Power might still be used illegitimately, but at least people would see them for the crooks and tyrants that they are.

rotfl, mpolzkill!!

M. A. Clem,

I’m sorry, you’re right. I did say earlier that he’s not a bad guy.

But darn-it, he associated us with the “hard-right”. That’s really offensive and I couldn’t help myself. Besides, he seems to be a good-humored guy; got to catch if you’re gonna pitch, right, Acky?

Glad Fallon liked my jape. Thanks, Fallon.

I hate when work interferes with blogging. The free market needs to provide robot slaves… for free.

That’s OK, mpolzkill, call me names. My blogging skin is thick. It’s so funny to be called a liberal again. The last time I was booted off DailyKos, I was a right-wing troll.

My politics don’t fit very well within the typical parameters, but I still think they are good politics. I strive to remain free of dogmatic beliefs. It’s a very messy world, and nothing will ever change that. If there is a perfect system, then it is hidden well in Plato’s world. The only absolute I hang my hat on is the speed of light in a vacuum. Next would be mathematics, but even that I give some latitude thanks to Godel.

Complimenting my pragmatism is a finely honed B.S. detector that has been shrill for over 10 years now. Our ability to trick ourselves is boundless, so I point it inwards too.

I’ve been trying to get rid of it, but I still have a bit of an optimistic streak at times. My bleeding heart liberal streak begins and ends at sticking up for the little guy (or gal). I own guns, but I am not in love with them. They are just another tool on my little hobby farm. The grain attracts rats from the river occasionally, and I’m not about to lay down poison with the animals around. Plus, killing them is fun.

I enjoy a good racist joke as much as the next guy, but don’t expect me to persecute any group. Every illegal immigrant I have met was nice as pie, and employed on a farm here in Oregon. I have no problem educating their children, especially since the dropout rate is high around here. By the sound of it, the dropout rate is high everywhere.

I spent time in jail for manufacturing amphetimines before I saw the light, and I can say first hand, 90% of the people in jail should stay there. That’s not persecution, that’s an objective truth. I bought my house with cash after I sold the rights to a piece of software I wrote. I got 2 trips to Australia out of the deal too. It’s not a big house, but it has a still-pristine river in the back. I wanted to submerge some copper tubing in the river for a heat pump, but it’s against the law. The excuse is heat pollution, but I’m sure they just want me on the grid.

Let’s see… I’m not well versed in the history of economics, but I am fairly good at market dynamics, and macro of today. I don’t put on that many trades these days, but I have to tell you, it felt great to make money off a falling Citigroup using derivatives. That was poetic justice.

I know a girl here. All I have to do is take her out to dinner, be polite and make her laugh, and then maybe a movie or dancing, and then I’m her real good friend for the night. As soon as her shoes hit the walls, that phone won’t get answered.

There. Now you know all about me. I’m a lot like everybody else… maybe more handsome

You know, not having a firm position on anything from hour to hour isn’t what it means to be free of dogmatic beliefs.

Oh, but it is.

It’s not hour to hour; it’s only when new information in processed through my B.S. detector, and then examined for actual information content that plausably improves my perception of what I believe to be truth.

I am a very big on ‘show me’. Inductive reasoning is what makes mothers think we are dead when we are a half hour late for dinner. They see a traffic accident is backing up traffic, and 10 minutes later, the odds that it was us in the wreck are running 2:1 in their heads. I’m definitely more a deductive reasoning sort of fellow.

It’s one of the reasons God and I are only on friendly terms, and not very close terms. The pay-now, and I’ll pay you back after you die thing sets the ol’ detector warbling. But that’s just me. I still follow most of His rules… whatever they are. It’s not out of fear; it’s just a courtesy that makes me feel good.

So let me ask you, mpolzkill, what (or who) should I be reading here? The place is huge.

I’m not a big fan of the font that is used here. I have a touch of dyslexia, and that good for a laugh sometimes.

Those stupid CAPTCHA boxes with the sideways letters are like a cruel joke. If I were OCD too, I’d probably still be stuck on some site from 2004.

Thanks for the info. I just watched the first 20 min. I have to do it in pieces… work and all.

So, the first 20 minutes are an exact hashing of all the things that seriously increase my blood pressure. Right down the line, he is exactly correct IMO.

She is bashed as a liberal, but Naomi Kline took one narrow slice of what Mr. Higgs touched on – taking advantage of crisis, and really blew it open in her book Shock Doctrine. The chapters that dealt with the Iraq war demonstrated, in unambiguous terms, a level of corruption and stupidity that was grotesque. She is scoffed at, but nobody as seriously refuted the facts in the book.

Though she didn’t mention it, it demonstrated clearly the problems that can arise when certain things are treated as a for-profit venture. Drawing from a cheap foreign labor pool to help in the reconstruction of Iraq while unemployment there was 68% was clearly a mistake. Chasing the short term gains caused massive longer term losses, and loss of life. The resulting unrest also enabled the contractors to spend every dime before they announced the violence made it impossible to complete their contracts. Betchel only finished 1 of the 53 schools they were contracted to build, and it was declared uninhabitable. They never repaid one dime.

It will be interesting to see if Mr. Higgs speaks about the problem with the big think tanks. Politicians come and go, but the think tanks outlive elections and are stuffed with influential policy wonks suffering from groupthink. The AEI should be declared a terrorist organization, and a drone sent in to bomb it.

Government growth… have you ever heard of the weapons offset trade? It’s where a country agrees to purchase weapons, but the company selling the weapons must purchase some product the country produces, usually in the same amount as the weapons cost. That can be problematic because a weapons manufacturer often knows nothing about selling mangoes. There is help for that.

•American Countertrade Association
•Defense Industry Offset Association
•International Reciprocal Trade Association
•National Association of Trade Exchanges
•Corporate Barter Council
•Investment Recovery Association

There are other trade groups too, and if you look at their member companies, almost all are weapons and weapons systems manufacturers. But those are just the public interface. What they do, for a fee, is put you in touch with the right people in government to make your deal happen, and unload your mangoes.

People in government do that? Yes; one estimate was 40,000 when all the contractors are included, but that seems high to me.

You probably didn’t even know that you are subsidizing a massive vertical arms industry that disrupts other markets by dumping products. Also, the successful use of the weapons products reduces the number of potential consumers.

The teats are not enough: the government is also a willing host to tics and other parasites that have burrowed in thoroughly and poisoned its bloodstream. Our checks and balances have prevented a dictator from taking power, but it has not prevented corruption from diffusing throughout the system.

The odds say that some percentage of politicians want to go to Washington to serve the public good. Empirical evidence says the percentage is small, but they can be identified by their voting record and their sponsors. When you do that, you find the most altruistic politicians are the ones labeled as kooks.

California has sent a steady stream of scum to Washington. The latest fad is female democrats. Jane Harmen, Nanci Pelosi, and Diane Feinstein are all ankles, and ankles are 3 feet below another body part. They are the democratic version of the republican Tom Delays and the Dennis Hasterts. Nothing that comes out of their mouth is truthful information.Just like Donald Rumsfeld, they spew wrongness every single time they open their mouths. They contribute net negative information, and you can actually become dumber by listening to them. Those with impared defenses – small children and generally dumb people – should not be exposed to their voices.