FAQ

Q: Oh hai Mr. Liberal Helpypants. And hey there, Mr. Conservative Flaggybomper. Oh and howdy do to you, Mr. Thirdparty Jazzhanddistraction. What do ya'll think about the violence inherent in the system?

A: It is regrettable but necessary.

Q: What can we do? Do we really want this for ourselves?

A: Don't be daft. It is what it is.

Q: A thing is itself? 

A: Vote for me and a thing can be whatever you want it to be. LOL! I'm just kidding unless you believed me. But seriously. Maybe. It is it. Is it? We can all agree it is is or it is it. Freedom and the children and the future. [APPLAUSE] To answer your question, I do claim cultural and moral relativism, but my actions will clearly show I accept objective reality.

Q: Neat trick. So we accept the law of identity and agree a thing is itself, consistently 
observable and quantifiable over time. You agree with science, right? (You can choose not to answer the question, Mr. Flaggybomber)

A: Science is great! We need to regrettably use the violence inherent in the system to fund more pointless research into...

Q: Sorry to interrupt, but I get the point (that you have obviously missed). So back to "it". Do the properties of "it" include being immutable? What physical and chemical properties are known about "it"? Has "it" been observed to have changed over time or in different conditions? How and why? Have these claims been empirically tested?

A: Don't be dumb. Obviously rationalization and regurgitation of talking points. And anyway red herring. So shifting the burden of proof, you'll see you're an anarcho-atheist who subverts common decency and engages in orgies with headpots and crackhorses.

Q: . Yeah, while wearing a Hitler mustache. But why put forth absolute certainty without tested hypotheses? Could there not be a better way of interacting with other human beings?

A: Dismissive pity. I used to be just like nostalgia. That reminds me of deflecting with humor. Wisdom of the ancients and appeal to authority.

Q: That seems patently false and also irrelevant. Why? 

A: Because moving the goalposts and circular reasoning.

Q: Why?

A: Resort to anger. Clear indication that I meant I do not want to talk or think about "it". Ad hominem.

Q: You seem upset. Why?

A: Because you're disturbing the arbitrary piecemeal peace law and rapidly approaching the last straw. There's a gun in the room and it's about to be drawn. Reason is a threat both foreign and domestic and naturally creates a prattle among the citizen-slave chattel. Take your scientific methods and Socratic junkie meth-heads and accidentally trip in our beds of freshly planted hemlock or we'll lock you up in cages and ask how pleasant your precious peasant ass feels. You're our property and property doesn't ask questions; it does what it's told and thinks what we tell it and we'll make our properties think you're a terrorist. 

Q: I'd say nice freestyle, but that isn't a fashion you're into. Why so serious?

A: Because I use the violence inherent in the system.

Appropriate response: FAQ you!

A Brief Introduction to Central Banking

Many of the economic problems we face today can be boiled down to a single root cause: Central Banking. In the case of the United States, the central bank is called the Federal Reserve. A good read to learn the basics of central banking can be found here. I highly recommend reading this article. A book that covers everything you might have wanted to know about banking is The Mystery of Banking by Murray Rothbard. Essentially, the bank exists to control fractional reserve banking, fund wars, devalue the dollar, and ensure all of their cronies in Washington and Wall Street get richer.

Discussion of creating a United States bank began before the ratification of the Constitution. The first national bank of the United States was pushed by Alexander Hamilton and created in 1791. However, Thomas Jefferson was appalled at the idea of a national bank. In fact, Jefferson wrote in a letter to John Taylor in 1816 (Monticello.org) that ...banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is by swindling futurity on a large scale. Even before 1816, Jefferson was strongly opposed to a national bank. While Congress was deciding on creating the First Bank of the United States, Jefferson wrote a letter to George Washington outlining how the bank was unconstitutional. Not only Jefferson held this view of a bank, James Madison also felt the bank was unconstitutional. Madison later pushed forward with a bank to help fund the War of 1812, although that bank expired after twenty years (Millercenter.org). Was Madison being a hypocrite? Probably, but how else would he fund a war? One evil of a central bank exposed right there. Look for a more in depth history of the institution of the United States bank, and how central banks have funded wars throughout time in later posts.

How does fractional reserve banking affect me? There is this little thing that banks (the place where you store your money, not necessarily, in this case, the Federal Reserve) called Fractional Reserve Banking. Basically, out of all of your hard earning savings that you store in a bank, some percentage of that money is taken out of the vaults and lent to some other entity in the hopes of making some return on that investment. This is where the interest that gets added to your account comes from. Banks have been doing this for eons, so it can’t be that bad, right? Well, if a bank lent at market rates and the customer of that bank were informed that not all of their money would necessarily be there if the customer chose to take all of the money out, then it might not be so bad. However, the lending rates are determined by (in the United States) the Federal Reserve, not by market forces. This has the effect of leading people and businesses to believe they are richer than they actually are. In other words, the capital base on which many businesses are built is fictitious. Money is produced out of thin air using this system. This manifestation of money is known as the money multiplier. The money multiplier is a big reason that bank runs are so devastating these days. For example, if you deposit $1,000 and want all of that money back, and the Fed has set the fractional reserve lending rate at 90%, then that $1,000 can have up to $4,685.59 associated with it (see Table below); therefore, $3,685.59 was created from nothing!. The Table below shows the initial investment by a bank's customer ($1000.00). Each column after the first in the first row under each reserve rate shows how much is lent to each subsequent bank for that reserve rate. The columns in the second rows under each reserve rate shows how much the initial investment grows with each loan. If this seems immoral to you, it is. Don’t worry, most banks today are FDIC insured, so the taxpayer will carry all of the burden.

Fractional Reserve Money Multiplier
90% Reserve Rate
$1,000.00	$100.00	$10.00	$1.00	$0.10	$0.01
$1,000.00	$1,100.00	$1,110.00	$1,111.00	$1,111.10	$1,111.11
10% Reserve Rate
$1,000.00	$900.00	$810.00	$729.00	$656.10	$590.49
$1,000.00	$1,900.00	$2,710.00	$3,439.00	$4,095.10	$4,685.59

Another operation conducted by the Fed is the introduction of money into the economy. One of the reasons they cite for doing this is to increase the “purchasing power” of the dollar. The Fed devalues the dollar to provide a false sense of security for the every citizen that uses US dollars. The simplest way to think of how the Fed creates money, thus devaluing the dollar, is that they take out a US bond against themselves further increasing US debt, and then they take that money and place it into the coffers of the banks within the Reserve's umbrella. That money then filters down through the public, but not after those that get it first spend the money. Therefore, the people who get the money when it is first introduced into the marketplace spend the money at almost full value, but by the time it gets to those at the bottom of the ladder, that money does not have nearly the same purchasing power (devaluation through inflation). If this system seems fraudulent, it is. If you and I were to engage in a system where you spent money I created by writing a check on a zero balance against myself, we would go to jail. 


This is just the briefest of introductions to Central Banking. Much more will be written on this subject as this blog matures.

Libertarian "Bigotry"

I found a particular blog post on Lewrockwell.com that shows a video of one of Obama's Czars and how he feels about "libertarians". I don't really care what men and women like him think about most things, but what hurt me was that he quotes Emma Lazarus's poem from the Statue of Liberty, and claims libertarians to be bigots. Now, I'm not completely taken by the term "libertarian", and I don't really care what you call people that believe in life, liberty, and the pursuit of property, but this man has a complete and utter lack of understanding of the person he is trying so desperately to describe.

This is what frightens me about Washington, D.C...unprincipled morons are running the show and stealing our money (productivity) to fund their wars, their currency devaluation, and their hate towards people that refuse to fall in line with their talking points.

Late Night Links

It isn't really late at night here on the the East Coast, but since I have some time, I thought I'd post a few things. First off, there is a great book called It's a Jettsons World by Jeffrey Tucker. Each chapter discusses how new technologies have changed the world, and how these advances in technologies were brought on by private, not public, enterprise. You can find the free audiobook at Mises.org.

As promised, Keynes vs. Hayek round two:

arrested for resisting my lawful command... sounds impressive

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2012/03/cops-in-a-jam-after-cell-tape-contradicts-arrest-report--/1#.T3OT1zGPXc9

Evil insurance company attempts to non-violently resolve traffic obstruction.

Noble police officers employ violence to prolong traffic obstruction.

Non-violent driver attempting to resolve traffic obstruction with said evil insurance company deemed threat by noble police officers and reduced to tears.

Evil insurance company provides baffling evidence that noble police officers capable of being complete dicks.

Okay, quips aside, here is my point: the issue was being resolved without the need for any sort of government interference. There are market mechanisms in place that recognize people break down and they need to have their vehicles moved. Everything was being taken care of. There was no need whatsoever for the government to interfere.

I don't care if this woman was batshit crazy or the rudest person alive. Her attitude is irrelevant because her interaction with the officer was not voluntary.

Should you yell at people with guns? Probably not. Actually, you should probably do what they ask.

Left to her own devices, this woman would have avoided the interaction with the officer altogether. She chose the non-violent option of yelling at her insurance company to get things resolved. Brilliant! The market bears these burdens with a smile and sympathy. The government makes people cry.

I said it once before but it bears repeating now (repost)

Let me break it down.

I've said it before but it will eternally bear repeating. The only power possessed by any government--anywhere, ever--is its ability to initiate violence with impunity.

YES. There are warnings. There are citations. There are tickets and fines. There are friendly-sounding letters. There are court dates. There are pleasant-looking social workers. There are social and cultural pressures.

But these are just "polite" suggestions that conceal the threat of violence.

Refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the above?

Go to jail.

There's Mr. Police Officer at your door offering to take you for a ride. His friend Mr. Prison Warden is willing to take you under his wing and help you see sense.

Refuse to go to jail willingly? Do you consider your court-ordered arrest to be nothing more than kidnapping? What will you do?

Submit to arrest or else.

Mr. Police Officer politely reminds you of his authority.

Or else what?

We will forcibly arrest you.

Mr. Police Officer hates resorting to coercion. It looks bad.

What if I exercise my natural right to defend my person and property against aggression?

We will shoot you. Dead.

Mr. Police Office has it on good authority that you're a mentally unstable and certifiably dangerous drug dealer.

Every political ideal and issue is built upon this simple, sadistic premise: "Do it or we'll kill you."

Every ballot you cast in the name of democracy is a sanction for the majority of people to inflict this violent ultimatum upon a minority of people. Every time you say "there oughta be a law...", you're proposing a new situation in which this violent ultimatum must be used. Every day, you're threatened with this ultimatum by people you've never met for murky reasons you've never understood.

I don't appreciate ex post facto justification. Don't make excuses for your abusers.

So much is possible with freedom. There is so much that will have to wait until our lives have passed. We have so far to go before there are individuals who are truly allowed to ask and explore all of the "why?"s they want with impunity and encouragement. I know what we are missing. I fear too many people resist because they are afraid to know.

A Personal Journey Through the Market

I thought it would be a good idea to write how I developed as an individual and I how I got to where I am now.

I grew up in an Atlanta suburb and was always inundated with conservative principles and ideas. When I began to develop my own thoughts in my early teen years, I thought I was quite progressive, but looking back on things, I definitely leaned toward the conservative end of the spectrum. However, I was probably less conservative than others with which I spent the majority of my time. I got a job at fifteen bagging groceries for a large grocery store chain part time. It was there where I first started seeing how unions could influence the workplace for the rest of us. I always turned down there invitations to take a cut of my paycheck each week, because I considered the job to be a temporary one, and nothing they could offer ever appealed to me. However, my refusal to accept their invitations did not stop the union representatives from attempting to strong arm me into joining their club. I didn't think much of it at the time because I concerned myself with other pursuits, such as hanging out with friends, earning some gas money, and girls. When I was finishing high school, I was what I consider now to be politically confused, because I believed that US supremacy was paramount to sustain global "peace". I was a big supporter of the war in Iraq.

Things began to change in college. I went to a school in Virginia and was all of the sudden surrounded by people of many different backgrounds. There were students from liberal-minded regions such as Boston and California, as well as some from the more familiar deep South. Mostly, though, there were students from the Washington, DC area, specifically Northern Virginia. A large number of these students were the sons or daughters of parents working for the federal government at some level. This is when I began to see just how ingrained in our lives the federal government is. In my freshman year, a friend of mine bought me Atlas Shrugged. It seemed long and daunting so I shelved it. At the beginning of Sophomore year I went to work for the local grocery store chain doing the same bagging groceries work. Here, I saw the unions at work. They still pushed me into trying to join for a piece of my paycheck each week and I still refused. Because I refused I had to work extra hours to make up for the absence of union members striking for seemingly inane reasons. This made the college students upset. We had more important endeavors in which to engage, such as studying and drinking beer. They swore they were "out to protect us". I felt they just scratched the back of those in the club and strained those of us that didn't want the paltry benefits they could offer.

It was about this time when I found myself wandering through a bookstore where I found a copy of Ayn Rand's Anthem for four dollars. I bought it and read it in one sitting. I loved it. The book highlighted the importance of individualism in an increasingly more society-minded world. I started to read Atlas Shrugged. It was big, and it was daunting. I couldn't read it all in one sitting. But every time I opened that book, it made me think in a way I never had before. I put it down and picked up other books, such as Ron Paul's The Revolution: A Manifesto. I became enthralled in Ron Paul's 2008 presidential campaign. More ideas bloomed. I really began to grow. I started to talk to other people about these new ideas. These talks never went well because I couldn't formulate all of these ideas into coherent arguments, and I would always end up just getting mad. The other people did as well. I finished Atlas Shrugged shortly before I received my undergraduate degree and it changed my life.

Soon after I finished reading Atlas Shrugged I began graduate school. This is where I really started to solidify my thoughts on the free market, liberty, and government. Reading as much as I could on economics and government got me very excited. I started toying with the idea of starting a blog about free market idealology, but I never really had the time until right now.