The Wayback Machine - http://web.archive.org/web/20050208183210/http://www.livejournal.com:80/users/garthnak/
 

Garthnakdot

About Recent Entries

Happy Birthday, Ms. Rand.Feb. 2nd, 2005 @ 07:24 pm
Oh, and before I forget.  For a woman to whom the world and myself owe a great deal...

Ayn Rand's Birthday

Happy Birthday, Ayn Rand.

Current Mood: thoughtful

A Test for FeministsFeb. 2nd, 2005 @ 06:56 pm
A test for true feminists (verus simple female chauvinism) is this question:  If you lived in a matriarchal society, rather than the patriarchal one you perceive exists currently, would you fight for masculism - mens liberation?  In other words - if, instead of women, it was men being oppressed (in the same way you currently see women oppressed), do you believe that you would fight as strongly for their rights as you do your own?

Feminism should strive for equality of rights.  Far too often I see feminist discussion devolve into gyneolatry and male-bashing, or prating about a history of victimization.  I much prefer the feminism of folks like Wendy McElroy and the iFeminists (related community).  I will support that cause until the day (hopefully in my lifetime, though perhaps unlikely) that it becomes obsolete.  I can not, however, bring myself to associate with the kind of people that seem to frequent the [info]feminist community.  Most of these people seem hateful and unabashadly chauvanistic, with a victim mentality that reacts violently to every perceived slight against their version of the womens liberation movement.  It is an unwelcoming and hostile atmosphere, and does not reflect the spirit of friendly equality that should be the goal of feminism.  Men and women are complements, not rivals.
Current Mood: busy

To the "anti-Bush" crowdJan. 31st, 2005 @ 01:33 pm
"An “anti-something” movement displays a purely negative attitude. It has no chance whatever to succeed. Its passionate diatribes virtually advertise the program that they attack. People must fight for something that they want to achieve, not simply reject an evil, however bad it may be."
--Ludwig von Mises (from The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality)


Be positive. People respond better to hope than to vitriol.
Current Mood: thoughtful

"One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them." --Thomas JeffersonJan. 27th, 2005 @ 06:06 pm
See?  Now this is exactly the kind of circumstances I am talking about:
One man grabbed Gloria Turner and pushed her toward the register. She said the other kept his gun on her 62-year-old husband, who also goes by the name Shoats.

She said she tried to open the register, but one of the men told her she wasn't moving fast enough and tried to shoot her husband. He missed -- and his gun jammed.

At that point, Bobby Doster pulled out a .380-caliber handgun and shot one of the suspects. Gloria Turner then went for a 9 mm pistol she keeps near the register.

"All hell broke loose," she said. "I was trying to shoot and dial 911 at the same time."

Both suspects took cover behind the store's meat counter as the owners opened fire. Gloria Turner said she doesn't know how many bullets were fired, or how many times the suspects were hit.

Police arrived about five minutes after receiving Gloria Turner's call; the suspects died a short time later at a hospital.

The bloodshed, nevertheless, startled Gloria Turner, who has been around guns all her life, and has used them for target shooting. "But I never figured I'd have to use them on anybody," she said.
We own guns in the hopes that we never have to shoot anyone - just as we buy house insurance in the hopes we never have a fire, and car insurance in the hopes we never get in an accident.  Some people want to deny us the ability to purchase the necessary insurance - the ability to defend our lives and freedom from those who would take them from us.  I think it is appalling to want to leave innocent human beings helpless and at the mercy of those who would kill or control them.  It is ultimately the infantilization of your fellow man.
Current Mood: busy

Swiss Miss? Only if they're distracted by the Tilt-O-Whirl.Jan. 25th, 2005 @ 01:21 pm
This story just warms my heart:

Das Zürcher Knabenschiessen! (Swiss Teen Rifle Festival)  The time of year (every year, since 1657) when young swiss boys (and now girls) of many ages ride ferris wheels, eat cotton candy, then compete to shoot targets with service-grade assault rifles.  These are real assault rifles - not the toys the "Assault Weapon Ban" was targetting.  5,631 teens participated - and imagine, not one fatal wounding.  It's a miracle.

And yet, despite this proliferation of dangerous weapons (shooting is the Swiss national pasttime), Switzerland had a homicide rate of 0.96 per 100,000 - very low.  Proof enough that there is no positive correlation between gun ownership and crime - guns are not the cause of crime, they are only one of many possible tools in crime.  Obviously, a box cutter can be just as effective a tool in crime.  The solution is not to ban box cutters, it is to solve the source of crime - and to punish criminals.  Spend more time worrying about those people who are actually a threat to you, and less time worrying about whether little Billy could be down at the shooting range with his dad having fun.

Thanks to Marginal Revolution for the link.
Current Mood: envious

Grampa BullyJan. 22nd, 2005 @ 02:42 am
Social Security
My caption: "My generation promised 70 years ago that you would pay for our retirement! Now pay up!"

What a great scheme.  I think we should vote for even more benefits for ourselves to be paid off by our children and grandchildren.  And the cycle of cross-generational oppression spins 'round again.

Bonus: a fascinating article about freed sex slaves and their troubles - particularly one Srey Neth, exploited once again by her family.

(content today care of Catallarchy and Marginal Revolution)
Current Mood: amused

Jan. 18th, 2005 @ 05:28 pm
I would like to recommend Randall McElroy's blog entry today to all my Democrat friends.  I think he has some good points from an external perspective about how you can bring your party back together.
Current Mood: busy

On King and kings.Jan. 17th, 2005 @ 01:14 pm
As it is Martin Luther King, Jr. day, I feel compelled to comment.  Specifically, I would like to recommend his famous letter from Birmingham jail:
You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of Harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an "I-it" relationship for an "I-thou" relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful. Paul Tillich has said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression of man's tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus is it that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong.
Now, we must not deify MLK, the man.  He was not an individual without flaws - he was a socialist, an adulterer, and possibly a plagiarist.  He was, however, probably the most significant figure in the mid-20th century civil rights movement - and with his fighting, his convincing speeches, his calls for nonviolent civil disobedience, he ended segregation and helped guide the US to the path of racial equality.  For that, I admire him.  He may not have always been consistent with the words expressed in his "I Have A Dream" speech, yet with those words he still established a noble and correct approach to the purpose and nature of civil rights.  The idea that men may be judged, not "by the color of their skin but by the content of their character" is the spirit of legal equality made real.  He pointed out the horrible inconsistency of the application of the Declaration of Independence - how it embodied the promise of justice to all men, yet the eventual establishment denied justice to so many.

I salute Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. for his mighty service to this nation and to people of all races.  He helped to force the issue of freedom through methods deemed highly controversial - through the breaking of unpopular laws, but without violence, without hate.  He fought the systemic perversion of liberty, and history proved him successful on many fronts - even as we have receded on others.

Government is an imperfect institution, as are all works by fallible men.  I hope the lessons of our past are not forgotten, but that it is remembered forever that liberty is not free - that, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."  I see folks trying to grant more and more power to those who govern us, claiming it is for our own good - that without government, people will not make the right decisions.  The necessity of the civil rights movement proves that government far too often fails - on the grand scale - at making right decisions itself.  It takes strong men and women, like Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rosa Parks, to remind people that the torch of liberty is fueled - not by government - but by citizens who do not merely stand by and accept the persistent and unjust violation of their fundamental human rights.

Dr. King once wrote, "He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it."  Here is the lesson of Martin Luther King, Jr. Day:  What are you doing to fight for your liberty?
Current Mood: thoughtful

Minerva Minx it ain't.Dec. 29th, 2004 @ 06:59 pm
So the other day I found and read an interesting online book by Robert P. Murphy, called Minerva.  It is available for reading (in PDF form) at that link, so check it out.

Here's my mini-review: The story basically centers a near-future world in which a group of people creates a market anarchist utopia on an island in the Pacific.  They become very sucessful through heavy investment, and are soon the envy of the world - which, of course, inevitably leads to great conflict.  A fairly simple premise, but it really takes off in imaginative ways.  The book is relatively short (210 pages), and was put up in serial form, in six parts.  If I have any criticism, it is that the book's story becomes a bit disjointed about half way through, probably because of the serialization method, but the plot does not suffer majorly.  On the whole, it is well written and has interesting and coherent ideas and compelling characters, even if his vision seems a bit naive (but that can be forgiven).  He is not a professional fiction author (I believe he is a college professor), and it is a remarkable achievement to be releasing for free.  I recommend it to everyone who enjoys scifi, it is probably a bit different from what you are used to.  Oh, and rated R for language, minor sexual content, yadda yadda.  Not that anyone really cares about that.

Oh, and I have printed out a copy of it if you can't stand reading on the computer screen - just ask me if you would like to borrow it, I will happily loan it to you.
Current Mood: busy

Putting the "ass" back into "Christ's Mass"Dec. 25th, 2004 @ 01:21 pm
Merry Christmas to all!  Yes, even if you don't celebrate it, you can still have one.

This time of year, it seems like libertarians like to weigh in on the Ebenezer Scrooge question, on both sides.  Here is a sampling from this year and years past:
What I Like About Scrooge - Steven E. Landsburg
Who's the Scrooge? - Roderick T. Long
In Defense of Scrooge - Michael Levin
A TCS Christmas Carol - Douglas Kern
I Am Ebenezer - Brad Edmonds
And other Christmas-related articles from economists:
The 12 Days of Christmas Index - PNC Bank
The Economics of Santa's Workshop - Michael Levin
Is Christmas Inefficient? - Jeffrey Tucker
A Capitalist Christmas - Dale Steinreich
Bethlehem's Economic Lessons - Lew Rockwell
Have a great day.  Oh, and if I notice anyone refer to Christmas as "X-mas", then so help me I will string you up with tinsel.
Current Mood: cheerful
Current Music: "Weird Al" Yankovic - The Night Santa Went Crazy
Other entries
» Why am I suddenly hungry?
Via Econlog, a couple of articles comparing government to food selection, both very good.  First, Chris Dillow from Stumbling and Mumbling:
I’ve got an idea that would revolutionize the way we do our weekly shopping.

Every few years, we all vote for our favourite supermarket company. The one that gets more votes across the country than any other then gets to deliver our shopping every week to all of us, regardless of whom we voted for. It delivers goods of its own choosing, at prices that it sets. It will make us buy Pedigree Chum even if we don’t have a dog. If we refuse to pay, the supermarket can throw us into prison. And if we try to buy food from other shops, we will still have to pay the winning supermarket.

After a few years, at a time of the supermarket’s choosing, we get to hold another vote. This is the only say we get about the prices we’re charged or the food we get.

Now, this is probably the stupidest idea you’ve ever heard. But it’s exactly how we buy our political services.
A related story from Reason by Wil Wilkinson:
Imagine you live in a town where you are required to pay several thousand dollars of taxes each year into a public fund that is used to buy food for the entire community. There is a publicly elected “Menu Board” that determines each year’s offerings. You wanted rye this year? Sorry! The Board voted for Wonder Bread. Again! You could, in principle, opt out of the public food system and buy rye, pumpernickel, or seven grain oat-nut crunch at a fancy private store. But you’ve already paid thousands in taxes, and can’t afford to pay twice for everything you eat. The Menu Board picks it. You eat it.

Imagine the controversy. Vegetarians (“You’ll get lentil loaf and like it!”) will lock horns with the Atkins lobby (“You can have my bacon when you pry it from my dead cold fingers!”) to wrest control of the Menu Board. The kosher set will fight against shrimp-lovers; Mormons will rail against the Starbucks crowd; Hindus will agitate against the forces of barbeque.

Public school boards and curriculum committees are like menu boards for our children’s minds. Isn’t what we teach our children more important than what we feed them? Bitter and divisive conflict over curriculum is inevitable. Miller and Levine’s Biology is to creationists what pork is to Muslims. Getting a Cobb County sticker with your biology book is like getting a little note with your pork chop: “Warning: Not Halal.”
And, via a commenter on the Dillow article above, "What If Supermarkets were Run like Schools?" by Mark Harrison.

I am becoming increasingly of the opinion that our children are in dire straits if something is not done quickly (ie, within the next 10 years) about the public school situation.  Public schools are not cutting it, and throwing more money at the problem* is not helping.  Why do we have so much choice for supermarkets to provide food, which is vital - but so very little choice for schools, which are just as vital?  Why is this inefficient bureaucratized monopoly allowed to persist in spite of all of its shortcomings?  Have people really been so fully indoctrinated that they can not possibly imagine a world without public schools, that they believe something so necessary would be allowed to die if it were not provided by the State?  I just don't buy it.

School vouchers are probably our best bet right now - anything to put the fire to the feet of the people who are currently failing our children and demanding more money at the same time.  While I realise some people (*cough*public school teachers*cough*) find the idea just horrible, it seems to me the reasons are generally more of ignorance or stubbornness than of legitimate and fair consideration.  Talk about "reactionary" thinking - if you mention the word "voucher" around some teachers, they seem ready to bite your head off.  Who knew teachers were so..."conservative"?

* Updated: Since apparently the UC Hastings proposition search link was just for my session, it timed out. I have added below a table of education ballot propositions that have passed over the last 20 years.

Click here and search for "education and bond" and check "Passed". Over the last 20 years, I find no fewer than 14 spending propositions:
YearProp #NameBond issueEstimated Cost w/Interest
198426State School Building Lease-Purchase Bond Law of 1984$450,000,000$922,000,000
198653Green-Hughes Shool Builging Lease-Purchase Bond Law Of 1986$800,000,000$1,200,000,000
198656Higher Education Facilities Bond Act Of 1986$400,000,000$700,000,000
198875School Facilities Bond Act Of 1988$800,000,000$1,430,000,000
198878Higher Education Facilities Bond Act Of 1988$600,000,000$1,000,000,000
1988791988 School Facilities Bond Act$800,000,000$1,430,000,000
1990121Higher Education Facilities Bond Act Of June 1990$450,000,000$905,000,000
19901231990 School Facilities Bond Act$800,000,000$1,430,000,000
1990146School Facilities Bond Act Of 1990$800,000,000$1,430,000,000
1992152School Facilities Bond Act of 1992$1,900,000,000$3,300,000,000
1992153Higher Education Facilities Bond Act of June 1992$900,000,000$1,560,000,000
19921551992 School Facilities Bond Act$900,000,000$1,560,000,000
1996203Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 1996$3,000,000,000$5,210,000,000
19981AClass Size Reduction Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 1998$9,200,000,000$15,200,000,000
Total:$21,800,000,000$37,277,000,000

You may notice that some of these appear to be identical, except for a slightly different name and a different number - but they are in the same year. This is not a duplication - the voters passed two bond measures in both elections of the same year, at least thrice. In addition to this, note that in California public education facilities are allocated fully 40% of the annual state General Fund budget.
» Hmmmm....
A protest in LA, anyone?

Addendum: Damn!  It had to be this saturday, didn't it - the saturday I am going to Gencon.  Oh well.  I will still keep it in mind if Gencon falls through, for whatever reason...
» Why I am no longer at home in the Left or Right
As someone who for a very long time identified himself with the Right, it is rather disconcerting now that my political beliefs have matured and I have realized that I have no clear home on either side of the political spectrum.  People on the Right think I'm a liberal when we discuss social issues, and people on the Left think I'm a far-Right-wing conservative when we talk about economic issues.  What is being missed (on both sides) is that there is a synthesis of the social liberalism and economic "conservatism" (which used to be called economic "liberalism", and still is called that in other countries) - it is my belief about the fundamental purpose and place of government.

I was a libertarian long before I even knew I was.  I came to the conclusion on my own (well, perhaps with some influence of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence) that, philosophically, government's purpose should be limited entirely to the protection of the rights of some people from being violated by other people.  I believed this for a long time, even though I also believed it was impossible practically.  When I was introduced as a teenager to the Libertarian Party at the Orange County Fair, I agreed with almost everything they had to say - except for (at the time) drug legalization and open borders.  However, I also believed that their message was entirely impractical - sure, I didn't believe in income tax, but should it really be abolished?  Well, over time my beliefs became more bold, and I now agree totally with their "World's Smallest Political Quiz".  I score at the very pinnacle of the Libertarian region - whereas in those days, I was on the border of the Libertarian and Conservative regions.

This is all to underscore the history of my political thought.  To get down to brass tacks, let me say that I now philosophically believe in total liberty for all people, as long as they do not violate the rights of others.  This is, essentially, the libertarian perspective, which I formulated even before I had a name for it.  However, neither the Right nor the Left believe wholly in the libertarian perspective - they both take half of the philosophy and chop off the other half (to varying degrees).  Let me expand on this with a message to both sides.

To the Left:
Let me assure you that I agree with you on numerous issues.  I believe in drug legalization, I believe in legalization of gay marriage (though perhaps in a different way than you do), I believe wholeheartedly in freedom of speech, of the press, and of expression.  I don't like flag burning, but I will fight for the right to of people to express themselves in that way if they so choose.  I believe in complete equal treatment before the law, and I am wary of the overuse of the death penalty.  I believe in the right of people to engage in any consensual behaviors they like in the privacy of their own home without fear of government intrusion.

However, I disagree fundamentally with certain tenets of Leftism.  Leftists see a distinction between the freedom to exchange bodily fluids versus the freedom to exchange small green pieces of paper.  I do not.  I believe that economic freedom is just as necessary as social freedom, and that the two are fundamentally inseparable when it comes right down to the question of what liberty is.  I believe that income and property taxation are a violation of my social freedom to be secure in my own possessions and the product of my own labor.  I see both as a form of slavery.  Income taxes tell me that, before Tax Freedom Day, I am working not for myself but for the government - workin' fo da Massa.  Property taxes tell me that I do not own my own home and my own land, but that the government does - how is that different from livin' on da Massa's land?  My life, liberty, labor, and property are mine - they do not belong to Massa Bush (or whoever is in office) to take his cut.

I also believe that reverse discrimination, like affirmative action, is not justifiable.  Now, this is something not every Leftist believes in - I personally know at least five strong Democrats that do not believe in affirmative action.  But it is certainly a Leftist position - and it fits a certain mindset that is common in Leftism, that of the elevation of the Oppressed.  Larry Elder calls this the "Victicrat mentality" - the belief that society must compensate each and every person who has, at some point or other, been a "victim" of some injustice or other.  It is this focus on victim-hood that distorts a belief in freedom and fairness into a belief in the almighty Special Interest Groups.  It is something I think the Left needs to be constantly wary of falling into.
To the Right:
I of course agree with the Right on many things as well.  I do not believe in the minimum wage.  I believe in minimal (actually, zero) forced taxation.  I believe in free trade and free enterprise.  I believe in freedom OF religion and not freedom FROM religion.  I believe strongly in the right to bear arms as our right to self-protection - as well as our last and most precious defense against tyranny.  I believe that government does not carry the responsibility to protect me from myself - in the form of things like seatbelt and helmet laws.  I believe that the government does not belong in the health care business, and I believe that environmental legislation has gone crazy wacko.  I believe that drilling in Alaska is probably a good idea.

I also, however, disagree with many of my former conservative brethren.  I do not believe that the government's job is to regulate morality, or to define marriage.  Sodomy laws, drug laws, and the like are a gross overstepping of the right to privacy - and I am surprised that more conservatives do not see that, as privacy from oppressive government is a fundamental tenet of conservatism.  I believe that social freedoms are inseparable from economic freedoms - that spending money is a form of expression, and that it is not the only form of expression to be protected and cherished.  And marriage is not the business of government, so the gay marriage debate should be moot no matter what you believe about the morality of homosexuality.

I do not believe in an at-all-times hawkish foreign policy.  I believe that we should send in troops only as a last resort, and that civilian casualties must be kept as minimal as possible.  Too often it seems like conservatives are willing to sacrifice the lives of innocents merely because they happen to live in the country of the current "enemy" - I believe that innocents are individuals with their own beliefs who may or may not deserve death, and that it is always better to err on the side of caution rather than stray into murder.  "Kill them all and let God sort them out" is not an acceptable military policy, as it would justify the destruction of the whole Earth if taken to its logical extreme.

Ann Coulter's words are reprehensable to me fully half of the time - she makes statements like "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." (National Review Online, September 13, 2001) which are radical and unhelpful to the conservative cause.  It violates the tenets of freedom of self-determination, due process of law, and freedom of religion, all of which conservatives should wholeheartedly believe in.  It recalls to mind the terrible, unChristian Crusades in which innocent Jews and Muslims were slaughtered if they chose not to convert.  It is a hateful and violent attitude - not a conservative one, and certainly not a Christian one.  Conservatives, please - beware of people like Ann Coulter, supposed "fellow travellers" who will in fact destroy your side by means of misrepresentation.
In any case.  I had to get all of this off of my chest.  To liberals - I am not Right-wing merely because I believe in the the free market.  That is a more philosophically "liberal" outlook than most liberals could attest to these days.  And to conservatives - I am not Left-wing merely because I believe in social freedoms.  If you were truly conservative, you would conserve our precious liberties from oppressive government in all of its forms.

I look forward to a day when people from both sides of the political spectrum can come together in the libertarian alternative.  If folks like Sean Hannity and George Carlin truly believe in liberty and freedom as they say they do, then I hope some day we can realize we have more in common than we knew.  Until then, any small steps I can take in that direction will, I hope, be helpful.
» Playground Capitalism
Now this (from Marginal Revolution) is the way to do it.  Kids at an elementary school near Detroit are getting money for grades.  And look!  They'll even be getting a lesson in government oppression:
After the Christmas break, Knoper said the paycheck curriculum will be ramped up a notch when the kids start paying taxes on the hallways (a form of road tax) and playgrounds.
Maybe next they could start redistributing grades to some of the underperforming students.  "Sorry, Jimmy, you're not getting an A - Clarence has an F, so he's obviously more needy than you - we're giving you both C's instead.  Why are you crying?  Aren't you compassionate for Clarence?  Don't you want him to succeed too?  What a greedy little capitalist - you obviously don't understand that your grades are entirely due to society, and thus society has a right to take and redistribute them.  Go take a time out and read chapters 19 through 22 of Das Kapital."

Some of the students have even learned about tyranny of the majority and lobbying for special favors:
At one point, Knoper's students were selling items to each other, sending a mini-black market into full swing. Then the third-graders started to see the downside of the black market and voted to outlaw it, Knoper said. They've also learned -- like many adults -- that sharing money and loaning money among friends are bad ideas.
How nice of some third graders to vote to outlaw a practice that did not affect them unless they participated voluntarily in it.  They're learning splendidly from their parents - that if someone competes with you, all you have to do is lobby the authorities to take them out for you.

Of course, there are even predictable economic problems.  First, there is no wage competition - the students have a monopolist employer, and have no recourse to seek different wage-for-schoolwork opportunities.  Thus rewards are set arbitrarily.  Secondly, I'm going to assume that the supply of "Beverly Bucks" is not fixed, but is in fact printed by the very people paying the children.  Then again, this could give the children (and the teachers!) a necessary lesson in inflation and the problems with government debt-financing.  If the teachers are actually smart about economics, they may be able to correct it by altering wages or prices over time based on the current money supply - but somehow, I'm doubting they'll pay that close attention.  I'm getting pictures in my head of a Beverly Depression with 8-year-old hoboes doing homework for other children for a wheelbarrow of Beverly Bucks.

Notice there is even a problem of scarcity:
Across the hall, one student was almost in tears. The radio pens sold out before he could get one. Even at $100, the pens were extremely desirable items and teacher Kim O'Rourke promised to look for more of them.
And the scarcity is made worse by what probably amounts to price controls (or at least price inflexibility - the administration of the school store by bureaucrats rather than businessmen whose income is tied to the store's earnings).  The pens that students purchase for $100 sold like hotcakes, apparently - if the price had been adjusted higher due to demand, perhaps the student would not be weeping and would have one instead.  Ah, the valuable lesson that price gouging is good.

But, despite the niggling economic issues, I still think that on the whole this is a valuable teaching method.  It gives students a concrete positive incentive, rather than merely fear of retribution when their parents receive a report card.  I'm sure detractors will complain that it is conditioning children to become little consumers - but then, I don't really have a problem with rational consumerism, and it is better to teach the children about it earlier rather than later if they are to make wise purchasing decisions in the future.

I actually experienced something similar to this when I was in first grade, and I lovedit.  Mrs. Gallo, our teacher, would hold class-wide oral quizzes and we would receive play-money in exchange for correct answers.  The play-money could be spent after the quiz at Mrs. Gallo's "shop", which she would set up on a blanket in the middle of the classroom - it would have erasers, pencil sharpeners, and other little school-related supplies, all marked with certain prices in play-dollars.  I remember happily purchasing a multi-colored eraser one time, and looked forward to these quizzes with great enthusiasm.  Purchasing power, when there are things you wish to buy, is a powerful motivator for success.  I wish Beverly Elementary all the best.
» A clarification...
Since some people are apparently offended by my definitions of "liberalism" in the last post, let me clarify it a bit.

First of all, these have always been my own personal perceptions of the philosophy that has been called "liberalism" in the US for the last century.  That is not to say that they make up the sum total of the philosophy, and I am not so ignorant as to believe that.  Maybe it was a mistake to use terms that could possibly offend people - but let me make it clear that what I was describing was not what Leftists believe they are defending, but how conservatives view Leftists.  That is an entirely different ballpark, and it is not meant as a slight against all liberals - it is meant as a description of what it feels like the Left defends from this side of the fence.  Please do not be offended by it, because I know you Leftists hold your own laundry-list of pejoratives to describe "conservative" positions - uncompassionate, hard-hearted, greedy, selfish, etc.  None of these are accurate either, of course - but they are your perceptions and you are entitled to them.

Now - let me clarify the terms I used which may have been unclear:

Socialism - Does the Left believe in Socialism as viewed by the actual Socialists?  Of course not.  But they believe in many clearly Socialist-inspired policies - national health care, minimum wage laws, nationalized resources, business regulations, etc.  The Left in this country clearly still believes in the "mixed economy", and not total government control of the market, which I am thankful for.  But it is still clearly more Socialistic than I like.

Political Correctness - Political correctness is the personal crusade of main Leftists - organizations like the NAACP and ADL, NOW, and plenty of other very Leftist organizations are on the forefront of speech censorship.  Look at what happened to Trent Lott when he complemented an old man on his birthday - he was strung up a tree for being politically incorrect.  And the Left isn't even consistent - look at Robert Byrd's (D-WV) long and illustrious career, dispite his former status as a Klansman.  Yes, the Right has their own problems with freedom of speech, which I will freely admit and condemn, but the Left has been far more active in that sector in the last thirty years.  Just look at the most recent example - a school banning historical documents that refer to God.  Do you think any of those calling for the ban were conservatives?  Pretty doubtful.  When studying the Declaration of Independence in public schools qualifies as "establishment of religion", I'll let you know.

Indulgence - This is admittedly too vague of a term, but I could not come up with a better one at the time.  What I am referring to is the Left's support of things like public welfare programs - even when they become a crutch for those on them.  The myth of public housing projects is that it helps the poor - the fact of the matter is, it is the Projects that KEEP many people poor.  They are an easy escape for people, and they allow poor people to indulge their other whims rather than seeking a way into better living conditions.  The Projects inevitably end up hurting the very people they are trying to help - and the same goes for MOST social welfare programs.  This is what I am referring to as "indulgence" - the indulging of the baser desires of those who are unwilling to succeed on their own merits.  It is one thing to give charity to someone to help them OUT of poverty - it is another thing to give someone so much charity that they have little motivation to leave.  Being "on the dole" used to be shameful in the US, which gave the poor an incentive to make it back into productive society.  Welfare is no longer shameful, it is mainstream - and the Left wants it that way.

Appeasement - Here I am talking about foreign policy.  And I'm not just talking about "coalition-of-the-willing" appeasement, where we wait for the UN to work things out before we take action to defend our own borders.  I am talking any and all sacrifice of national concerns to international desires, which I do not believe to be the job of the US government.  The US government's job is to protect the American people first, and the rest of the world's concerns come second - that goes for everything from foreign aid to warfare.  George Washington, in his farewell address, recommended against entangling alliances.  Harmony and liberal intercourse with all nations, entangling alliances with none.

So I hope that clarifies some things.  I am sure I have offended some people MORE now, but that can not be helped.  Please keep an open mind that these are my perceptions of "Leftism" in general - it is not meant as a description of the belief of any and all self-professed liberals in the US, and it is wholly inadequate as such.  It is merely a very short list of a few causes which I have seen the Left defend over the years - in my view, wrongly.  Clearly, if you disagree with these policies as well, then I am not talking about you.
» Am I a liberal?
I wonder if anyone has any thoughts on this quotation, from the preface to the 1953 American paperback edition of The Road to Serfdom by F. A. Hayek:

The fact that this book was originally written with only the British public in mind does not appear to have seriously affected its intelligibility for the American reader. But there is one point of phraseology which I ought to explain here to forestall any misunderstanding. I use throughout the term "liberal" in the original, nineteenth-century sense in which it is still current in Britain. In current American usage it often means very nearly the opposite of this. It has been part of the camouflage of leftish movements in this country, helped by the muddleheadedness of many who really believe in liberty, that "liberal" has come to mean the advocacy of almost every kind of government control. I am still puzzled why those in the United States who truly believe in liberty should not only have allowed the left to appropriate this almost indispensable term but should even have assisted by beginning to use it themselves as a term of opprobrium. This seems to be particularly regrettable because of the consequent tendency of many true liberals to describe themselves as conservatives.

It is true, of course, that in the struggle against the believers in the all-powerful state the true liberal must sometimes make common cause with the convservative, and in some circumstances, as in contemporary Britain, he has hardly any other way of actively working for his ideals. But true liberalism is still distinct from conservatism, and there is danger in the two being confused. Conservatism, though a necessary element in any stable society, is not a social program; in its paternalistic, nationalistic, and power-adoring tendencies it is often closer to socialism than true liberalism; and with its traditionalistic, anti-intellectual, and often mystical propensities it will never, except in short periods of disillusionment, appeal to the young and all those others who believe that some changes are desireable if this world is to become a better place. A conservative movement, by its very nature, is bound to be a defender of established privilege and to lean on the power of government for the protection of privilege. The essence of the liberal position, however, is the denial of all privilege, if privilege is understood in its proper and original meaning of the state granting and protecting rights to some which are not available on equal terms to others.

For most of my life (before my "libertarian awakening"), I have identified myself with conservatives in America.  I still call myself a conservative among some crowds, to avoid confusion about the term "libertarian".  And by "conservative" I have meant that political ideology in the US which believes in capitalism, liberty, personal responsibility, and justice - as opposed to American "liberalism", which believes in socialism, political correctness, indulgence, and appeasement.  Of course, not all people who adopt EITHER label fit these (very brief) definitions, and I have always had trouble with them, but that is how I have thought of them as general delineations.  I have certainly never fit the groove that Bible Belt "conservatives" fit into, with their sodomy laws and other social-control policies, but then, I never saw those as being ideologically "conservative" policies - merely misguided ones.

However: It seems to me that in the 20th century, the term "liberalism" has been so far distorted and changed from it's original meaning that it bears no resemblance to it's former self (from the 18th and 19th centuries).  Folks like Rush Limbaugh and other defenders of the free market call themselves conservatives and use the term "liberal", as Hayek notes, as an opprobrium.  It has become a term representing the very opposite of what it originally referred to.  I have come to realize this through study over the last few years, and have started using the term "classical liberal" and "libertarian" to describe my ideology, and in the modern sense they truly do describe me more accurately than the connotations of either modern "liberalism" or "conservatism" - but I have a question that is more to the point:

Is it time to reclaim the term "liberal"?

Now, I'm not only asking other libertarians, but folks of other political stripes, which is why I am cross-posting this to both [info]libertarianism and to my own journal.  I have heard many libertarians over the years refer to themselves as "liberals" - Hayek and Mises being two notable examples - but with the modern American connotation of the term, that seems to confuse more than it enlightens.  If the term "liberal" were to be reverted back to its original definition in the United States, perhaps it would be better, but the trick would be getting there from here.

Is it a useful pursuit?  It might even be possible - homosexuals are a very small percentage of the population, yet they managed (over many years) to transform the term "gay" into an entirely different term than its original.  The job of "true" liberals should be even easier, since the word already has had that meaning in the past.  But is it actually worth the effort?
» Thanksgiving, ho!
So we are having an apartment Thanksgiving tomorrow, since we'll be having "real" Thanksgiving at our respective parents' houses.  Tonight...we made desserts.  Beth made an interesting berry concoction that looks delicious, Chris made a lovely chocolate bundt cake, and I made two pumpkin pies.  I hope they turned out alright - they are cooling right now, and the crust looks like it may have overcooked, but we shall see.  I'm sure they'll be tasty anyway, they look and smell very good.  Tomorrow we make turkey, stuffing, potatoes, yams, and other such delicacies.  I look forward to it.

And remember this, folks - while the first Thanksgiving is considered to be from Plymouth colony in 1621, that was not a bountiful cornucopia but a meager harvest, and many of the colonists died from famine.  The harvests were not bountiful until the colony abandoned socialism in favor of the free market in 1623.  That is the Thanksgiving we should be celebrating - the triumph of individualism that brought people together better and more prosperous than ever.  It is the celebration of man's ability to produce and to thrive in the face of grave adversity when he is merely allowed the tools and the incentive to do so - private property.

And in case you're wondering, yes, I plan on turning EVERY holiday you love into a political rant ;-)
» Three Purple Giblets
I've never said I didn't like President Bush as a person - even his really vitriolic opponents don't tend to attack his personality, just his politics.  He seems like a genuinely nice guy, and has a good sense of humor.  So I find this story hilarious - especially the last paragraph.

Yeah, I know it's a silly tradition that every president does every year - but I found this year's story much more humorous than normal.
» Ahhh, political ranting.
Don Boudreaux nicely sums up one of the most important differences I perceive between libertarians/classical liberals and the rest of modern political society - our treatment of government and its role.  Growing up, I constantly heard people say that government exists to serve the people - that we hire them, they work for us.  Yet few people blink when they hear the famous line from JFK's inaugural address - "Ask not what your country can do for you.  Ask what you can do for your country."  Isn't that the exact opposite of what I learned growing up?  Isn't that the exact opposite of the ideals of a democratic society?

One question one could pose would be, of course, what does JFK mean by "country"?  Is he asking for voluntary civil service for your community, your society - or is he talking about serving the State for the Greater Good?  While Kennedy was not nearly so leftist as his successors in the Democratic Party, he was still a leftist, and to most leftists "government" seems to be synonymous with "society".  And when one looks at the context of the quote, Kennedy seems to be specifically talking about national service - ie, serving the interests of the State.

But whatever interpretation you take, let me make this clear.  I have no problem with voluntary service to one's society - I applaud it, in fact.  But mandatory service - merely because one is a citizen of a nation - is unacceptable and inadvisable.  It is each of us through our own individual efforts that creates the Great Society - it is not Lyndon Johnson and his army of bureaucrats.  The New Deal should have been a deal struck by men with other men, a natural, voluntary rebuilding of the nation - but instead, it was a mandatory restructuring by an ultimately corrupt and power-mad administration which had to resort to intimidating the Supreme Court to get its way.  Once you start putting the focus of society in the hands of government, you have embarked on the road to fascism in its purest original sense - the deification of the State above the common man.
"The State not only is authority which governs and molds individual wills with laws and values of spiritual life, but it is also power which makes its will prevail abroad.... For the Fascist, everything is within the State and... neither individuals or groups are outside the State.... For Fascism, the State is an absolute, before which individuals or groups are only relative." --Giovanni Gentile

"Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato." ("Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State".) --Benito Mussolini

» Election rant
So, all the crap is finally over.  I know I'm the bajillionth LJer to note it, and I'm even a couple of days late.  But bear with me here.

How do I feel about the outcome?  Well, I'm not happy, of course.  But then, I wouldn't have been happy either way.  I voted for Badnarik, contributing to his 39,793 (about 0.72%) California vote tally and his 377,940 nation-wide tally (about 0.33% of the popular vote).  I don't feel the least bit bad about it, and I'm glad I did it.

How do I really feel about Bush getting re-elected?  I don't know.  The Republican in me is somewhat happier than it would have been with a Kerry win.  I'm hoping (irrationally) that something will change and that Bush will actually persue conservative small-government policies now that he doesn't have to worry about re-election.  But I'm not holding my breath.  And all-in-all, I'm still just angry that we didn't have any decent choices between the two major parties.  Not that I like many candidates the Democrats ever field, but I seem to like Republican candidates almost a third of the time...this just wasn't one of those times.

I don't know.  I'm babbling.  The fact of the matter is that we've got Bush for another four years, and this time with an actual majority vote - the first since his dad was elected the first time.  So now he's got a "mandate", as the newsmedia says.  I do not, however, know what that means - what kind of mandate was it?  Was it a pro-Iraq mandate?  An anti-gay-marriage mandate?  What were the major issues for the people who elected him?  Well, CNN has their exit polls, but there are reasons to doubt their validity.  All in all, it seems like the religious right really mobilized all over the red states, so they may be a big reason for the Bush win.  Combined with the 11 propositions that passed all over the US banning gay marriage, there are startling implications.  But I'm not willing to jump to conclusions yet.

All the people jumping on "the draft" being instituted are irritating me, though.  It's as if I'm living in a parallel dimension, where people are gullible enough to believe obvious political propaganda.  Oh wait - I do live in that dimension.  See, I don't like Bush, but he's repeatedly stated that he's not going to institute a draft.  So either he's blatantly lying, or he's telling the truth.  Despite what Bush's opponents like to say about him, he's not a pathological liar (like Algore and Clinton provably are).  So if he is lying, it is strategic.  It seems to me that it would be unstrategic to insistently promise "no draft" and then institute one (recollections of his father's "read my lips" debacle), so I can only assume he is telling the truth until proven otherwise.

Now, if he does decide to institute a draft, I'll be the first to line up with you and burn my draft card, march on DC, the whole bit.  But I just really don't believe that's going to happen.  It seems too remote and unlikely - and it is far more likely (in fact - it is true) that the whole "draft" fear was stirred up by Democratic propagandists.  Which is fine, they can feel free to stir up all the propaganda they want - it's just when people start believing the propaganda that I have a real problem.  And that goes for both sides of the aisle.

As for the "supreme court" packing fears: The justice that will most likely be leaving first is Rehnquist.  He is a conservative justice.  Bush will probably appoint another conservative justice.  So...we'll be trading one conservative justice for another.  That doesn't really change the "balance of power" in the supreme court in the slightest - so I don't think anybody has to get their panties in a bunch over Roe v. Wade getting overturned and the like just yet.  Maybe if it was one of the moderates that was leaving - but that's unlikely to happen in the next four years.  Besides, while the Republicans did gain seats in the Senate, they still don't have enough to reliably block a Democratic fillibuster (they have 55, they'd need 60).  So the Democrats still have a tactic to block certain appointments.

Anyway.  That's my electoral-year rant.  Back to your regularly-scheduled...um...other ranting.
Top of Page Powered by LiveJournal.com