My Driver’s Side Window was Smashed by a Vandal Friday Night

My Driver’s Side Window was Smashed by a Vandal Friday Night.

He stole some change, my insurance and registration papers, and my door pass for getting into where I work. On the bright side, it took me less than 24 hours and cost only $25 to get the glass replaced. I did all the labor myself. On the weekend. Using Craigslist.

So far, no one has offered me this condolence:

“It is an ill wind that blows nobody good. Everybody must live, and what would become of the glaziers if panes of glass were never broken?”

You think maybe they have been reading Bastiat?

One Year Later at PTPOL

One Year Later at PTPOL.

Well, this blog has been registered at for one year now. It took a while to get it off the ground, but it hit the ground running. (How’s that for a mixed – and contradictory – metaphor, by the way?) Click here to learn more about the blog, and here to learn a little bit about it’s author.

140 posts, 6,602 views, 482 comments, 200 WordPress likes, 192 Facebook likes, 54 followers on WordPress, 1150 followers on Twitter.

Not bad for an amateur one-man team, right? Well, its the readers that are more to thank. Without them there really is no point in writing.

Continue reading

Tea Party Heroes Ron And Rand Paul Make For A Bitter Brew; Seventh Response

Tea Party Heroes Ron And Rand Paul Make For A Bitter Brew; Seventh Response.

The following is the seventh paragraph of Barry Germansky’s op-ed Tea Party Heroes Ron and Rand Paul Make for a Bitter Brew, from earlier this year, interspersed with my rebuttals from within the last few days.

BARRY GERMANSKY: The Pauls’ default stance of misrepresenting the historical record also helps them peddle the absurd Austrian School idea to deregulate all private businesses and subsequently create a utopian free market.

HENRY MOORE: We have already dealt with the historical record, which you have ignored, but must you now ignore the point of science (economics is a social science, one for which there are many competing theories)? You are here misrepresenting the Austrian School of Economics. To quote Walter BlockNo, Austrian economists can’t oppose or favor anything. To say that they do is to violate the normative positive distinction. Austrians are limited to saying that a given policy will have thus and thus effects; they logically cannot say, qua Austrians, that a policy is good or bad, nor may they favor or oppose it, again qua Austrian economists. Certainly, they can do so as citizens, as ethicists, as philosophers, but economics per se is and must be value free, despite the fact that this stricture is all too often violated, as in the present case.”

So Austrians do not oppose or favor any policy, such as deregulation, privatization, “utopian” free markets, as Austrians. They may do so as libertarians, which many Austrian economists are in varying degrees, but not as members of the economics profession, regardless of the school they find the most useful. Why is adherence to the Austrian school or other free market theories, and to libertarianism often found in the same people? Emphasis on such things as individual choice and individual action, as well as the fact that utility (relative to societal norms) applied to knowledge gleaned from the scientific theory, and the morality of the philosophical/political theory often lead to compatible conclusions.

A general example would be where policy a leads to unintended result b, an Austrian neither favors nor opposes policy a in and of itself, rather its merit depends on whether result b is in line with the original intent of policy a and/or the societal norms that the policy derives from or is in reaction to. To the scientist, the policy and its result have no moral value relative to science, only relative to the purported intentions of the policy in question. To the philosopher, especially one coming from a framework that values liberty highly, the Austrian (though not as an Austrian) may oppose the policy (and favor alternatives) on those grounds, regardless of whether or not he favors or opposes them (or remains objective, in the case of science) on other grounds.

A specific example following these same lines would be economically interventionist policies that intend to increase homeownership rates because the societal norm is that home ownership is a worthy and valuable goal, which then have the result of decreasing homeownership or stopping the growth of home ownership in the long run, or that have myriad other unwelcome (by society, not necessarily the scientist, who is mostly an observer) effects that outweigh those results considered more positive. The Austrian that is also a libertarian might oppose these policies on the grounds that public policies favoring one group (generally socio-ecnomic, ethno-cultural, political, or regional) at the expense of others necessarily violates the rights of the those in other groups. I just described to you the Housing Bubble and ensuing economic crisis.

[It is sometimes observed that Austrian school luminary Ludwig von Mises, though libertarian in his conclusions, was very much a utilitarian/consequentialist, and when coming to conclusions about the moral worth of a policy, applied this to his scientific knowledge, rather than a deontological libertarianism apart from his scientific knowledge. This is somewhat true, taking into account semantics, but upon further study, when all is put into context, the label is somewhat of an oversimplification.]

Furthermore, your idea of regulation is arbitrary. Because there is a public policy and it is called a “regulation,” that automatically means it regulates? No. Often so called “regulations” create irregularities, and occasionally the blame for economic crises rests on their shoulders. The free market, on the other hand, is capable of regulating without the aid of government so-called experts. Markets can regulate themselves because each person only needs knowledge about a small portion of that which affects him, whereas central planners can not regulate markets because there are far fewer of them and by comparison the knowledge required is too vast for them to master, in a given point in time, let only keep tabs on throughout a large span of time. This is an overly simplistic way of looking at it, of course, but when one clearly can not even grasp this concept, up till now I hope, it is pointless to delve much further. Though I have attempted to do so hereherehereherehereherehere, and here.

BARRY GERMANSKY: The Pauls refuse to believe that deregulation caused the Great Depression and the 2008 recession, despite vast quantities of evidence to the contrary.

HENRY MOORE: There is hardly any evidence (it is certainly not vast) that deregulation caused the Great Depression or the 2008 Recession, unless of course we see deregulation (which is often cleverly misused to refer to not only deregulation, but regulation, reform, and combinations of all the aforementioned) as a mitigating factor (e.g., rapid deregulation of a sector accustomed to regulation can indeed cause “problems,”; a separate issue entirely is the fact that these “problems,” though painful for some, are necessary to liquidate malinvestments and to shift misallocations, and that without these temporary wounds reopening, worse infections would fester).

In fact, it is more accurate to blame regulations. I use the term loosely (but nowhere near as loosely as some use the term “deregulation”) to refer to such things (during the 2008 Recession) as the Federal Reserve’s Dual Mandate of price stability and low unemployment, manipulation of interest and exchange and tax rates, price controls, implicit bailouts (this is the  type of regulation most commonly ignored by progressive-types griping about the so-called “repeal” of the Glass-Steagall Act, which often bears the brunt of the blame for the 2008 Recession), the Community Reinvestment Act and related or similar laws, the financial actions of certain Government Sponsored Entities, and the exacerbation of the ensuing problems with things like explicit bailouts, stimulus, and Quantitative Easing.

BARRY GERMANSKY: Following the Great Depression, when FDR introduced strict, compartmentalized regulation of the marketplace, the United States enjoyed a forty-year period of virtually uninterrupted growth, transforming the country into a superpower.

HENRY MOORE: The growth was not the result of any regulations, it was the result of a reinvigorated post-world war private sector, which had been stifled by the Hoover and Roosevelt economic and foreign policies in the 1930s and early 1940s. Without these policies the boom would have been that much sooner and by the time in question that much bigger. This is part of the reason the US became a superpower (it already was prior to the Great Depression, but after World War Two, increasingly so), but just as significant was what occurred with World War Two. The United States was comparatively insulated from the world wars in terms of structural damage. So it recovered from them more readily than the other superpowers, those in Europe and Asia. The competition, even that from the other supposed superpower, the Soviet Union, simply did not compare.

BARRY GERMANSKY: Then, when Reagan took office in the 1980s, he was aided by Alan Greenspan and company to remove the historically-proven regulations.

HENRY MOORE: The regulations were not historically proven. They led to the end of Bretton Woods in 1971, and the regulations imposed because of that (which were diminished some by Carter, Reagan, and Volcker), including wage and price controls, and the slow unravelling of the currency, both of which were major factors in 1970s Stagflation.

A lot of the regulations that Reagan got rid of were not just FDR’s. Some of them were also Nixon’s. Paul Volcker (under Carter and Reagan) actually did more to deregulate than Greenspan (only briefly under Reagan, more closely associated with Bush Senior, Clinton, and Bush Junior) ever did. A lot of Reagan’s policies, including deficit spending were the opposite you make them out to be. Supply-side economics is not the same thing as free market economics. Any “economics” that puts too much (i.e., artificial) emphasis on either the supply side or the demand side (or on both as they are not mutually exclusive) is liable to create distortions. It is true that supply drives demand, but this does not mean supply should be propped up in any way by government. For the record, supply-side economics is subtle corporate welfare (as opposed to that which artificially prop up demand which is things like wage and price controls and welfare for the poor) and has been practiced by every administration and Congress going back for decades, including FDR, often in combination with more policies aimed at propping up demand.

Greenspan’s policies were far from free market reforms. For a former proponent of the gold standard and follower of Ayn Rand, he had comparatively little to show for it in his actual policies, often moving in the opposite direction.

BARRY GERMANSKY: This helped big businesses make more profits while sending the rest of America into the gutter. This culminated in the 2008 recession.

HENRY MOORE: So is it deregulation or profit that causes recessions? Which is it? Didn’t small businesses get profits too? And didn’t some wages go up in real terms? And weren’t the wages that didn’t go up start on that trend before Reagan and Greenspan? What is it about profit (or deregulation) that sends “the rest of America” to the gutter? Is it that some of these new profits are not in fact new, but simply the same profits but less of them stolen through taxation? In other words, is the reason that some of these Americans were no longer permitted to live off of someone else? If you want a policy to blame for making the middle class poor and the poor desperate, look at things like minimum wage laws, which take the bottom rungs off the employment ladder; unsustainable lines of production encouraged by an elastic currency and cheap credit; dependence on high priced foreign cartel energy sources because the Executive Office, Department of Energy, Environmental Protection Agency, and public rent seeking special interests don’t want the United States to access her own abundant natural resources; and outsourcing caused by high tax rates, onerous regulations and managed trade. Those are your culprits.

BARRY GERMANSKY: The Pauls are able to ignore all of these historical events because they treat their personal ideology as more credible than primary evidence. This is a big no-no for any serious historian.

HENRY MOORE: You mention few, if any, actual historical events, and virtually no reliable evidence. Mostly personal ideology and vague platitudes.  And hardly any context to accompany them. You are not a serious historian. Neither are most of the people you have been reading or listening to. You are all certifiable laughing stocks. You and your arguments have no credibility whatsoever.

Who Else Is Running?

Who Else Is Running?.

Check this out at the new blog as well!

Other than the two, shall we say, Fascists, and who shall remain nameless, that are running, is there anyone else worth voting for? It is subjective because it depends on your own conscience, of course. But who is running does not, because it is an objective fact, even if it is not a fair one (because there are so many schools of thought that do not have party representation, and even a few who reject the notion of political parties, and others still that reject democracy altogether). So, I’ve decided to do the whole profile-the-candidates thing. I am sure this has been done before, but as always, I will put my own unique spin on it. I’ll also include a number of people no longer technically running anymore, but who will likely get a few write-in votes and fill a void that cannot be fully filled by any of the others.

At first I was going to put the candidates in order from least favorite to favorite, something that was hard to do because some of these people are plain nuts and some of them are princes among men. I decide to put them into categories. I’ve got your Out-and-Out Commie Pinko Sons of Guns, I’ve got your Intolerant Racist-Bigot-Homophobe-Islamophobes. I’ve got your Economically Clueless Civil-Liberty Progressives.  I’ve got your Run-of-the-Mill Well Meaning Nationalists. And I’ve got your Constitutionalists, some of whom lean Conservative, some of whom lean Libertarian. The Big-Labor Big-Business Big-Government Corporate Fascists couldn’t make it this evening. I think they were busy lying their way through the swing states or something else important.



Roseanne Barr is running on the Peace and Freedom Party ticket. The PFP is not necessarily the most dangerous or radical of the parties here represented, but its current nominee is the most dangerous and radical of all the candidates I have here. Aside from being stupid and obnoxious (and rarely funny), she is downright malicious. Here is one quote:

“Part of my platform is, of course, the guilty must be punished and that we no longer let our children see their guilty leaders getting away with murder. Because it teaches children, you know, that they don’t have to have any morals as long as they have guns and are bullies and I don’t think that’s a good message. . . . I do say that I am in favor of the return of the guillotine and that is for the worst of the worst of the guilty.”

“I first would allow the guilty bankers to pay, you know, the ability to pay back anything over $100 million [of] personal wealth because I believe in a maximum wage of $100 million. And if they are unable to live on that amount of that amount then they should, you know, go to the reeducation camps and if that doesn’t help, then being beheaded.”

Read more disgusting quotes!

And while I think she has some of the right instincts, some of the bankers are indeed guilty (particularly those at, or with a direct line of credit to, the Federal Reserve), her rhetoric is dangerous. Though still protected free speech, thank God. Can you imagine how warped things would be if someone as sick and demented as Roseanne Barr was running but she never told you what she really thought because of some hate speech law? I want to know who the criminally insane ones are, thank you very much. I’ll take being offended any day over being tricked into letting my guard down so someone can go all Robespierre on me.

Why is it dangerous? One, because the punishment does not fit the crime, although I can think of plenty that do. Two, because it is hasty, we don’t know who is who and what is what yet. Three, because some of the people that might be reasonably scapegoated, be they speculators, short-sellers, house-flippers, Peter Schiff types were not doing anything that could reasonably be considered criminal or immoral, let alone something that lead directly to economic collapse or subsequent stimulus cronyism. Four, because even some of those bankers and rich Wall Street types that might be said to have been doing something they really shouldn’t have may not have been acting intentionally or maliciously.

A cap on income (anyone who thinks it would remain at $100,000,000, when not very many people make this amount anyways, and as the need for tax revenue increases just to service the exponentially increasing interest payments on the National Debt and unfunded liabilities, is naive) leaves open three options for earners who have reached their max: Discontinue productivity, thereby robbing the world of potential wealth and governments of potential revenue. Game the system so some income does not register as income, in which case you will likely have to hire legions of lawyers and lobbyists to do things that are not productive in and of themselves, which also robs the world of potential productivity and wealth. Or hand over every penny above the cap to the government, which is a 100% tax on income above the cap. There may be some charitable people that would be okay with this sort of thing, but odds are that they themselves could spend that money better than some central planning board. Its not as though I feel particularly sympathetic towards rich people or anything, I just think it is immoral to steal and impractical to stifle productivity.

And Barr’s disrespectful actions upon Jill Stein winning the Green Party nomination (which Roseanne was also initially vying for) didn’t do her any favors. I’m not all that big on Ralph Nader (he seems like a sincere guy, molded in the fashion of Robert M. Lafollette, Sr., and Burton K. Wheeler, two of my favorite “progressives”) but Jill Stein (especially in light of her applaudable stunt at the second presidential debate) deserves to inherit his legacy much more than Roseanne Barr does. Unfortunately Barr is running on a ticket (PFP) that Nader himself was on (in spite of running as an Independent) in 2008. Oh well, vote for her anyways if you want. In any other election cycle voting for Roseanne would be the equivalent of right in Hitler or Mickey Mouse. Which means her candidacy this cycle is the equivalent of a party actually nominating Rip van Winkle or Elmer Fudd. Its a joke candidacy, but it is still a protest vote.


This guy is a male feminist. Need I say more? Well, since you asked. He’s a whacked out socialist agitator to boot. There’s plenty more of those, but the male feminist thing really weirds me out. Little says “STAY…THE HELL…AWAY FROM ME!” more than someone trying to interlope on something that has nothing to do with them. Just saying.


Castro-loving communist on the Socialist Worker’s Party ticket. He’s basically the guy that conservatives think Obama is. Those few conservatives that don’t think he’s a Nazi, a Jihadist, or the Anti-Christ. I must reiterate that in spite of all the rhetoric Obama is little different than most other presidents in the last 50 to 100 years. He may even be the most arrogant president (but still not the worst). The differences besides these things are his background, his ethnicity, and the fact that he came after the others. My point being that every new president in recent memory adds to our problems; none take away, on net. Some are better than others in terms of how little damage they have done, but none of them in recent memory have in any way been worthy of praise. Even Reagan was ashamed of much of his legacy. How often do you hear that from his obnoxious fan club?


Peta Lindsay is not even old enough to be eligible to become president but that did not stop her from accepting the PSL nomination. It should be noted that she tried to get nominated on the PFP, but they barred (pun intended) her because of her age. The little I can find out about her stances on the issues I do like. For example, she’s more of an anti-colonialist than Barack Obama ever was (so there!). But I suspect that if I delved deeper, our relationship would go south. The PSL, the Party for Socialism and Liberation, is a Marxist-Leninist party after all. So in theory it is the worst party on the list.


He’s a hard left social democrat, aka socialist, who rejects both militarism and austerity and supports both social equality and political independence. Jerry White is more Obama than Obama is.


Stewart Alexander is another “real” socialist (according to Brian Moore, Alexander’s predecessor on the SPUSA presidential ticket, Barack Obama is not a Socialist, and while the President’s rhetoric sometimes leaves one guessing, I am inclined to agree with my distant cousin, though he is easily not my favorite one.) that is running. He is the best of the six as he more represents the tendency that ranges from Eugene Debs to Daniel De Leon to Rosa Luxemburg than he does from Leon Trotsky to Josef Stalin to Mao Tse-tung. And yes, there is a difference and everyone would be better off if they realized and appreciated it.



His name even sounds like he’s a white supremacist. So there’s really no surprise here. Policy wise he’s probably a heck of a lot better than most of the reds he’s sandwiched with, but the last thing this country needs is a conservative who actually is a racist. That’ll start a race war faster than anything.


The Prohibition Party is still alive and well (ok, they’re “alive,” not to sure about “well”) in the United States of America in the year 2012 and they’ve even got a guy running for the highest office of the land. It wouldn’t be so bad if he was just on some moral crusade about the horrors of alcohol (the most destructive drug in history I hear, and I’m not ashamed to say that I am a user), but when you tack on things that make Rick Santorum look like a flag-burning war-protesting hippie you know you’ve got yourself a winner.


You want to burn a Quran? Go ahead, this is a free country. You think that Islam is the chief thing this country suffers from and until we stamp out every one of them Sharia-pushing bomb-strapping ragheads even sleeping at night is a sin? God Bless you. But you want to pretend you have enough credibility to run for president (let alone win)? I believe in free speech and all, but that’s where I draw the line. I am glad that he wants to bring the troops home. But what he might do with them is something I don’t want to think about.


An abortion abolitionist in the worst way. I’m all for ending it myself, and hope to write a piece (maybe up to three) on practical and moral and constitutional ways to do so. Don’t get me wrong, he’s no Eric Rudolph, not even close, but he’s convinced that being outlandish and obnoxious will help his cause when it only brings about more alienation and leads one to lose focus on other important things, like other issues (I have no idea where he stands on most of them, which probably means he would be like putty in “their” hands) and his family. His personal life rivals that of Newt Gingrich’s in terms of sleaziness and hypocrisy. But kudos to him for challenging Obama in the Democratic Primary.



Joe “the painter” is a really smart guy. Too smart. He’s basically a technocrat. If he was running this country we’d all be better off. Whether we like it or not. But at the same time I think he might be a phony. His claim to fame is running around the country for a decade trying to decide what he would do as president. So while some of his policy prescriptions may in fact be smart, just how dumb (yet dedicated) do you have to be to come up with them in this manner? But the real deal breakers are things like gun control, his contradictory desire to bring down taxes and spending while maintaing and adding government programs, and his patronizing attitude on things like the average American’s diet. Seems like a nice guy though. Just like most of the other people who think central planning is the answer to fixing the problems that central planning caused in the first place. This guy is a utopian through and through, which in my estimation makes him a lot more dangerous than most hard left revolutionaries, who though they may have an idealized vision of a society that is to come, remain practical in the present.


Jimmy McMillan of the Rent is Too Damn High Party appears to be a libertarian in every way beyond things like rent, education, and maybe a couple of other issues, which comprehensive information on seems hard to come by. He opposes bailouts and the two-party system, which is a start, but his priorities and solutions are all messed up.


No one would ever guess that Tom Hoefling has enough ballot access (on two tickets, the American Independent Party of George Wallace fame and America’s Party of Alan Keyes renown) to get him the required 270 electoral votes (which should be the only requirement for getting into presidential debates, besides being of the right age, having natural born citizenship, and not having been president twice already, these being explicitly required in the United States Constitution. I can’t imagine something more fair than this. Sure it would force a tie, but once broken the outcome couldn’t possibly be any worse than what we do now which is simply handing the presidency to a red fascist or a blue fascist based on some bastardized version of the 51 % rule. Tom Hoefling would be about the same as Virgil Goode were it not for his more interventionist positions.There are many different variants of Paleoconservatism. It is not so monolithic as its rivals, the Realism/Pragmatism that became dominant in the Republican Party in the 1940s and 1950s, and the Neoconservatism that came into their own in the 1970s and 1980s. Rifts, between Pat Buchanan and Alan Keyes in 1996, and Chuck Baldwin and Alan Keyes in 2008, haven’t helped the matter.


This here is New York’s famous Naked Cowboy (this link will not get you in trouble!). He’s not really naked, so that’s a plus. He’s a Borders, Language and Culture Tea Party type, believe it or not. A very enterprising young man as well.


The Reform Party has ran just about every big name dissenting presidential candidate you can think of. Well, maybe not that many, but you can put Ross Perot, Pat Buchanan, and Ralph Nader on that list. In the year 2000 there was an attempt to draft Ron Paul and even Donald Trump briefly ran for the nomination. I won’t go into any of their candidacies here, but only say that the Party has had numerous rifts and that Andre Barnett seems to have largely stayed true to the Party’s original platform. Opposition to NAFTA, CAFTA, the WTO, open borders, and deficit spending being the central issues. Two to three years ago, this would have been my ideal party.


Buddy Roemer, former Governor of Louisiana, is similar to Andre Barnett and in fact lost to him for the Reform Party nomination. Early on he dabbled in getting the GOP nomination but dropped out and pursued the Americans Elect nomination, which turned out to be a total flop. He has since endorsed Gary Johnson (interestingly not Andre Barnett) but will probably still get a write-in vote from some quarters. 


Mr. O’Hara’s party (the Modern Whigs) is similar to the Reform Party in some respects in that it is somewhat centrist on the left-right scale. It has a greater emphasis on States’ Rights than does the Reform Party, and does not seem to focus on immigration or trade apart from its support for energy independence. 



This guy may not actually be as insane as one might otherwise correctly suppose. He is a parody of the two-party system more than anything else. Even when he says he would pass such totalitarian measures as a law requiring everyone to brush their teeth or giving everyone a free pony, I don’t look at that as something that’s wrong with him. Because the point he is making is that he can be just as absurd as Republicans, some of whom want to have crackdowns on every immoral and impractical action, and Democrats, some of whom think there is such a thing as a free lunch. So even if this guy was elected I don’t think he would try to pass these laws. The only reason he says such things, though I would expect him to deny it, it to get people to think about just how looney even the conventional parties are. For my part, I’d much rather have a free pony and clean teeth than free indoctrination and a cleaned-out wallet. But for the lack of ability to put him in another category, I will take him at face value when he says he wants to give things away and pass ridiculous laws, and put him with the other progressives.


The Justice Party’s candidate for 2012 is a bleeding heart liberal and former Democrat. This means he is a gun-grabber, a nanny-statist, an eco-alarmist, an affirmative action supporter, anti-war, anti-tobacco, anti-oil, etc. So like most sincere liberals (they are fairly common but not usually in positions of power) he’s a mixed bag. To his credit he has a reputation as a fiscal conservative. Most of his competition will come from Jill Stein in the Green Party. They are both vying for the support mainly from the Dennis Kucinich-Ralph Nader crowd.


Heavy Metal Band Lamb of God’s vocalist Randy Blythe may not be the most serious of candidates but he talks a good game. He is basically a regular guy, and has one of the best foreign policies ever: His first act as president will be to take a bullet in the arm so he knows what it means to send troops into harm’s way. He will not declare war on any country that he would not be willing to die on the field of battle against and would prove as much by leading the troops on the front lines. That’s not the least bit realistic, but if you take it at face value it’s pretty awesome. On the other issues he loses me.


Not many presidential candidates can claim that their business was raided by the police. And it should come as no surprise to find out that one of them is the candidate for the Grassroots Party. Get it? “Grass” roots? They are allegedly the same as the Green Party but with a stronger focus on bringing about an end to the Drug War, known in certain circles as Prohibition. As far as I can tell, the Green Party is also committed to permanently ending the Drug War, it is just not their Raison d’être.


I have a lot of admiration for Mrs. Stein. She seems like a nice woman, a sincere person, and a courageous fighter. Of course getting arrested for protesting the October 16th debate between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney doesn’t hurt her reputation in my eyes. Civil disobedience and nonviolent noncooperation are virtues in today’s political landscape, even if your political platform is not the most desirable. Decent on foreign policy. Great on the drug war. Civil liberties, check. A few other small things, and that’s about all she really has going for her from a libertarian perspective. To put it simply, on economics, healthcare, education, the environment, and maybe even energy she really sucks. The Green New Deal is really not a selling point for me. Unlike Rocky Anderson, however, she seems to be somewhat warm to federalism. She and Rocky Anderson will be vying for that remnant of the OWS/Nader/Kucinich vote (do they even vote?) that has not been in the tank for Obama or cleverly “liberated” by the efforts of the Ron Paul and Gary Johnson campaigns.



The Constitution Party lives up to its name in most cases. I personally do not hold the Constitution in as high of regard as I did a year ago, coming to realize since then that like anything manmade, it is not impervious to human nature. Neither in its original writing nor in its modern interpretation. No mere document ever could be. Some, obviously, are better than others. Our Constitution is quite possibly the best ever written that is still in use. But I can think of better ones that have fallen out of use. Including the one the Constitution was written to replace. The Articles of Confederation were themselves by no means perfect, and the Constitution was intended to be a simple amendment of them. But instead what happened was a whole-sale replacement and a bastardization of the original founding principles. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That’s all in the past now, so I won’t hold it against anyone for wanting to return to the original intent of the Constitution. But those who seek to uphold past usurpations of unconstitutional power or who seek to subvert the document further do not merit this consideration. They are fiends. Which is why I must call to task Virgil Goode’s continued support for prohibition policies beyond the state level, albeit scaled back from what they are now for the sake of spending less money.


It is hard to find information on some of the candidates, so I instead talk about their parties. This applies to Will Christensen. The Independent American Party seems identical to the Constitution Party in every way I can think of. There are two areas where they differ: The Constitution Party has had power struggles and has been infiltrated by “Neocons” (who have since been purged in one way or another) and has more ballot access. Will Christensen is only on the ballot in New Mexico.


I really like Gary Johnson. Just how much depends on the issue as well as my mood that day. Sometimes I’m a purist and sometimes I’m a pragmatist. I won’t say much more about him here because he is already so well known. I have written about him here, here, and here.


The founder of the Objectivist Party and the Vice Chairman of the now defunct Boston Tea Party. He is running on the Objectivist Party’s ticket, and if his time with the Boston Tea Party is any indication, is closer to Ron Paul than Gary Johnson is. But alas, that thing with the ballot access again.


She was ousted by the Boston Tea Party in favor of Jim Duensing. I have no idea why. She is running as an independent now and she appears to be spot on on all the issues she tackles. She is critical, as I have been, of Gary Johnson’s lest than perfect foreign policy, taxation, and the Federal Reserve.


He was running for the Libertarian Party’s nomination until Ron paul entered the GOP race. He dropped out an endorsed Ron Paul. Later he became the new nominee for the Boston Tea Party, which has since disbanded. Jim was tased and then shot by a Las Vegas police officer in 2009. I don’t know very many details as many of the links I found that had them are now defunct, but my gut leads me to take his part.


How did a virtual no name make it this high on the list? Because she makes a lot of sense. Her Platform is Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Sure that’s a little out of touch, but it is no less right because of it. And boy do she and her mentor Mark Hamilton have some things to say. I urge you to take a look if for no other reason than to just feel good about agreeing with her.


A Picture is worth a thousand words.

From the Comments: Loose Fiscal and Monetary Policy is the Cause of the Problem, not the Solution

From the Comments: Loose Fiscal and Monetary Policy is the Cause of the Problem, not the Solution.

There is a comment on one of my posts. It is really off-subject, but since I rarely get comments that aren’t pure spam (I even suspect that the comment in question is cleverly disguised spam), and since it is something that I talk about here on the site, replying to it and bringing it to my readers’ attention seemed like a good option. I don’t do this with all of the comments, just the ones that give me a clear opportunity to get a point across. It is probably bad blogger etiquette to do it at all, but at the moment I am working on several fairly extensive projects so I need a quick and easy post.

Mercadee: We have used both monetary and fiscal policy to battle this recession, and without the Fed’s actions to limit the downturn things would have been much worse. Fiscal policy in the form of the stimulus package, though too little, too late, and too tilted towards tax cuts, also helped to limit the damage to the economy. But when it comes to promoting a faster recovery, both monetary and fiscal policymakers have failed to do enough to help the economy return to full employment.

Me: Wrong! You are suggesting that policymakers should do those things which brought about the bubbles in the first place. What caused the depressions of 1920-1921 and 1930-45, and what made the latter one so long that did not occur in the case of the former? Loose fiscal and monetary policy. Stimulus to fund World War One, stimulus to pay off debts accrued from World War One, stimulus to fund public works projects, and stimulus to fund World War Two. What caused the housing bubble and its burst? The malinvestment that arose from the stimulative monetary and fiscal policy that was supposedly necessary to soften the blow of the dot-com burst, which was itself the result of prior loose policies. And here you are arguing for the same thing again. This time the bubbles are in student loans, car loans, and sovereign debt. It would be fine if there was a never ending series of bubbles that could burst and re-inflate, but there isn’t. Sovereign debt and government bonds are the end of the line. When that bubble bursts it will destroy the dollar, as the bubble and the false confidence it gave rise to is the only thing that has been propping it up. What gave rise to this bubble? There are many factors, and I suspect that, unlike the case of the other bubbles, this one was intended. Whether it is/was the Nixon Shock and completely detaching from a commodity standard; or wars for oil (the first one arguably being World War Two, as evidenced by the events leading up to Pearl Harbor, but perhaps more notable than this being the 1953 coup in Iran); or the creation of Bretton Woods in 1945; or the creation of the Fed in 1913; or the strengthening of the Fed in 1917; or the price controls and confiscation of gold in 1933; or the social programs and public works projects that created the current high levels of National Debt and Unfunded Liabilities, leading to the need to print more unbacked dollars; that is/was the chief cause I know not. And I care not as they are all contributing factors and all were misguided policies. The effects of these policies must be diminished. And similar policies must be prevented.

Does This Commenter Want To Revive Bimetallism? Greenbackism?

Does This Commenter Want To Revive Bimetallism? Greenbackism?.

I have had someone called “Silver Account” posting on some of my articles recently. I want to post their comments and my replies, all of which have to do with the Gold Standard and the Federal Reserve. Judging from their chosen username and what they said, I would say they are somewhere slightly to the left of William Jennings Bryan on more than a few issues. That’s just fine by me, home grown American Leftism is usually preferable to most imported varieties, although I have developed a soft spot for mutualists of late.

Comment from my piece Why I Am Writing In Paul And Not Voting For Johnson:

She [a voter quoted in my article] should stay in it [voting this election] and vote for the president [Obama]. Real people know the repubs are being swayed by the racist teabags. Paul has a good idea, but the resultant people elected (repubs) would be a disaster for working folks.The banks would take your houses like in the 1890′s, women and blacks would not be able to vote. And the copper(aka, robber)-barons would be back in charge of owning (stealing) stuff. And the ignorant south would be worse-off than they are now. There would be no subsidies the blue states are giving them.

My response:

For Obama? I doubt she would even consider it. If only the Republicans WERE being swayed by the Tea Partiers! All they are doing is using empty rhetoric to get the Tea Party to vote for them. The Republicans were listening to half of what the Tea Party was saying, they would at least have some credibility. But even if they did all of what the Tea Party wanted, it wouldn’t truly be enough in my opinion.

I take it you are referring to the Long Depression (1873-1896) and the ill effects of the hastily adopted Gold Standard? The Gold Standard actually improved the overall economic situation, and this period was the best, economically that the country had ever known. Unfortunately, the implementation of the Gold Standard after so many years of fiat greenbacks made the situation of debtors even worse. This was unjust. But what bimetallists and silverites won’t tell you is that the same thing would have happened with a silver standard or a gold-silver standard, just to a lesser degree.

In any case, no Gold Standard (see this post) should be implemented from on high. Not only does this grant a monopoly to those who already have the most gold, but you may see a repeat of some of the goings on in the 1890s. You are correct on that count. That is why I support competition in currencies. Those whose debts are in fiat dollars won’t be forced into harder to pay off debts because they won’t be forced to use a gold standard currency. Commodity backed currencies will eventually beat out fiat currencies, but ideally at a slow enough rate that debtors in the fiat system won’t have their situation worsened. Everyone wins. No one is pitted against somebody else. Debtors, industrialists, lenders, depositors, etc. It is not a zero sum game.

And the women and blacks statement is absurd. No one jumps all over themselves, disgustingly so, to appease women and blacks more than the Republican party. Real racists and sexists will never have a real voice in the GOP. They can’t afford to be bludgeoned by the Democratic party. Besides, it was historically the Republican party that stood for equal rights for all races and genders, at the same time that they were the party of corporatism and corruption.

And for your information, the robber barons of today are much worse than the ones around the turn of the last century, and they are already in control. Most of the robber barons were monopolists and thugs, but at the same time, they brought many good things to this country, to all classes, races, and genders. Maybe not as good or as cheap as a more free system would have, but still faster than bureaucrats, populists, proletarian revolutionaries, or simply “nobody” could have.

The South is full of ignorant people to be sure, but no more so than most other regions. But you are on shaky ground to label an entire region or its entire population ignorant. The patronizing collectivism inherent in your statement is in fact responsible for most of the ignorance you allude to. Do you know why the South needs subsidies? Because it STILL hasn’t recovered from the Civil War. White and black alike are still suffering from Reconstruction, and exploitation from Carpetbagging Yankees. They are both kept on the two-party plantation. They have both been utterly destroyed by the public school system, in both the segregation and integration eras.

Comment from my piece Let Us Not Be Crucified Upon A Cross Of Gold:

The Fed’s performance since 1991 has been unquestionably superior to its record at any time since 1913. However, the larger, long-run question remains: Can the Fed as an “independent” central bank maintain price stability contrary to the wishes of an executive branch that seeks to use its fiscal powers to manage the federal government’s burgeoning long-term debt?

My response:

I am not sure what metric you are using to say the Fed is doing a good job, but I really beg to differ.

From 1913 (actually 1915) to 1917 was the Fed’s best era. This was before they were allowed to trade bonds, which is when the fiat currency really got off the ground.

Its policies from 1917 to 1919 led to two depressions, one lasting from 1920-1921 and the other 1929-1945. This latter Depression was the worse of the two, and obviously worse than anything we have experienced since. Having said this, the Fed’s main role was to trigger it. The length was more the result of the Federal Government’s reaction to the Depression, though the Fed did have something to do with it as well. Keynesians and Monetarists claim that the Fed didn’t expand the money supply enough. They are wrong. While contracting the supply of money would have its own problems, expanding it was what caused the problems in the first place. The best thing to have done would have been nothing, whether by the Federal Reserve or the Federal Government. During this period, the price of gold was fixed. One of the reasons the dollar didn’t collapse in this period is because gold (including that which was stolen from the American public) was used to prop it up.

But because price fixing eventually leads to shortages, this arrangement couldn’t last either. Hence Bretton Woods, which increased the flow of and access to gold. But just as before, this could only last so long. Shortage was still inevitable. At the same time the money supply was increasing. Hence the Nixon Shock.

As if the money supply wasn’t increasing at an insane rate before, taking the dollar completely off of gold only accelerated the process. Now the only thing holding the dollar up is its reserve status, something which coincided with the period between 1945 and now because of the United States’ increased influence after World War Two, which had greatly diminished the other powers.

Fed Policy didn’t really change much in these early years. But as it was no longer constrained by a scarce commodity, it could let lose. We saw the effects of this with stagflation, the dot com crash, and the housing crash. I put it to you that the Fed actions that caused these three things have only gotten worse since 1991, and continue to go down that path.

Price stability is only good in the short run or relative to increased prices. Decreased prices are not evidence of a recession, they are the result of deflation, which is a natural economic trend that has nothing to do with monetary policy.

The debt can not be managed. It can only grow until default. Default will occur whether hyperinflation happens or not. So you either have a default without Fed involvement (the better option) or default with Fed involvement (instead of just “austerity”, it will be austerity AFTER currency collapse).