Liberty Maven

D o w n s i z e r - D i s p a t c h

Quotes of the Day:

“If the court grants our request … then if any law enforcement officer sees a Mongol wearing his patch, he will be authorized to stop that gang member and literally take the jacket right off his back.” - U.S. Attorney Thomas O’Brien

“The government can’t ban confederate flags, swastikas, or klan robes, and it sure as hell can’t ban the display of the Mongols’ logo.” - Marc J. Randazza

“What if the government had decided that, because of the Watergate scandal, nobody could use the word Republican again? - Zeichner Ellman

Subject: Federal hordes pillage Mongol property

The Justice Department indicted 79 members of the Mongol Nation Motorcycle club for racketeering on October 21. The indictment included federal seizure of the “Mongols” trademarked name.

The case hasn’t even gone to trial yet , but U.S. District Judge Florence-Marie Cooper has authorized the seizure of the defendants’ . . .

* Clothing, motorcycles, and other property bearing the Mongols trademark.
* Any similar property bearing the trademark that belongs to the defendants’ “agents, servants, employees, family members, and those persons in active concert or participation with them.”

In other words, many people who weren’t even indicted will have their property seized.

This ruling has serious problems . . .

Read More »

It’s quite amusing (if not nauseating) to hear McCain and Palin calling Obama a socialist at every turn if you pay the slightest attention to the ideas McCain embraces.  A nice little article at HighClearing.com successfully reams McCain for his hypocrisy:

The word “socialism” can mean many things to many people, anything from Western European style social welfare to state ownership of the means of production to the New Deal or the Great Society or a wide range of other usages. I’ll let those who know (or at least claim to know) more about the real meaning of the word have the debate over which usage is proper (mostly because I hate debates over whether somebody is using a politically-charged word correctly). Instead, I’ll engage the McCain rhetoric on its own terms.

McCain, just like Obama, believes that taxes should be levied for the purpose of funding social programs that redistribute income downwards. (We’ll leave aside, for the moment, the fact that both of them also believe that taxes should be levied for the purpose of funding a bloated military-industrial complex and other things that redistribute at least some of the income upward.) McCain and Obama may envision different forms and scopes for those programs, and those differences may or may not have profound consequences in practice. However, the McCain rhetoric is being employed to argue that just about any downward redistribution is a type of socialism. If it is (at least in McCain’s usage of the term) then McCain is a socialist. Maybe not as much of a socialist as Obama (we’ll leave aside welfare for the rich, for the moment) but a socialist nonetheless.

Read the rest here.

A hero of Liberty Maven, Thomas J. DiLorenzo wrote a fantasic article at the Ludwig Von Mises Institute discussing the detriments of central banking schemes that have put us into this economic crises.

Ask yourself this question: was the housing price bubble, which has burst, caused by (a) a Fed policy of too much liquidity, which caused artificially low interest rates, which in turn caused a great deal of malinvestment, or (b) a Fed policy of too little liquidity which caused high interest rates and a credit-starved economy? If you chose answer b, congratulations, you may have a future as a celebrated author, historian, and Wall Street Journal commentator.

Answer b is a theme of a truly ridiculous article by John Steele Gordon in the October 10 issue of the Wall Street Journal online entitled “A Short Banking History of the United States.” The article is an attempt to defend the Fed, its founding father, Alexander Hamilton, and the regime that it finances. (Gordon is the author of a book entitled Hamilton’s Blessing which sings the praises of a large public debt, something that Hamilton himself called a “public blessing.”)

Enjoy the rest of the article here.

D o w n s i z e r - D i s p a t c h

Quote of the Day: “Bad ideas can only bear the weight of reality for so long.” — Greg Jesson

Today we’ll compare the cases of Alan Greenspan, Ron Paul, and John Stossel, beginning with this . . .

If you oppose fiat currency and centralized government banking, and would like to abolish the Federal Reserve and legal tender laws in favor of free market banking and free market money . . .

And you think the best way to achieve these things is to put the right people — people who believe as you do — in positions of power, then . . .

It would have been reasonable to assume, prior to seeing him in action, that Alan Greenspan was the “right person” to head the Federal Reserve.

You could have justifiably assumed, based on Greenspan’s previous writings and statements, that he would use his position to not only control the damage done by the Fed, but also to argue for its abolition.

None of these things happened. Instead, the opposite happened. Greenspan betrayed every economic principle he had previously professed. Putting a presumed “right person” in a position of power did not have the right result.

To contrast with this example we can compare the case of Ron Paul. Ron Paul has always said the right things, and done the right things too.

Two different “right people” have produced two different results. What are we to conclude from this?

Read More »

We are barreling toward socialism at an alarming rate, and every day I become more and more afraid for the future of our country.  Teresa Ghilarducci is an economist at the New School for Social Research in New York who wrote a policy paper on the subject of retirement account, and followed that up with a book entitled, When I’m Sixty-Four: The Plot Against Pensions and the Plan to Save Them.  She was called to testify before Congress on her harebrained scheme to have the federal government take over all our private 401K plans (which have historically realized at least 10% annually, on average) and “guarantee” a rate of return of 3% over inflation. From ABC News:

Here are the basics of her proposed Guaranteed Retirement Accounts:

• Employees would make mandatory contributions equal to at least 5 percent of the earnings. Workers could contribute higher amounts if they wish.
• Those contributions would be offset by a $600 federal tax credit each participant would receive.
• As with a 401(k) plan, workers would have individual accounts they could track. The balance of each account would depend on each worker’s contributions and income level.
• The Social Security Administration would handle account management, and the Thrift Savings Plan — a well-regarded retirement plan for federal employees — would manage the money.
• Participants would be guaranteed a fixed rate of return that exceeds inflation by 3 percent. For instance, if inflation stood at 2 percent, the worker would earn 5 percent; if inflation reached 3.5 percent, the worker would earn 6.5 percent. Participants could receive an inflation-beating return above 3 percent if the government’s investment returns were high enough.
• At retirement, participants’ account balances would be converted into a lifetime stream of income that adjusts for inflation. There would be options to take partial lump sum payments, opt for lower payments in return for survivor benefits and, upon death, leave a portion of a financial account balance.

The intent of the plan is not to replace Social Security. Rather, Guaranteed Savings Accounts would supplement Social Security, Ghilarducci said.

Given the government’s horrendous track record (i.e. Social Security, Fannie/Freddie, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.) it’s preposterous to think the government would handle your 401K money wisely.

And then there’s this little nugget:

Read More »

In this week’s Texas Straight Talk column, Ron Paul warns about the disastrous consequences of yet another bailout package congress is debating:

With news this week that Congress is poised to consider a new stimulus package, I am forced to again ask a question that seems silly in Washington: How will we pay for this?

While a few Members of Congress have raised the issue, it certainly was not the primary concern of the House Budget Committee when they interviewed Ben Bernanke on Monday. And, when they did direct this question to the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, his answer was the standard rhetoric about how Congress needed to make tough choices. Needless to say, not many specifics were discussed.

One of the most liberal members of the House, Barney Frank, has at least volunteered something of a suggestion: “We can let Iraq take care of itself.” This, of course, goes in the right direction, but hardly far enough.

We need to declare the facts and their obvious consequences. The deficit of the United States is now spiraling out of control, and the recent bailout package has only made it worse. Our crushing federal debt is one key reason behind our current economic turbulence.

As Congress begins to consider the third “stimulus package” of the year, we need to realize it is time to start setting priorities. Priority number one should be cutting spending in foreign countries. This does not simply mean Iraq, but everywhere.

The next stimulus package is likely to include money for infrastructure. While these investments are, constitutionally speaking, supposed to be made by state and local governments, it is not likely that Congress will suddenly begin to pay heed to the document we are all sworn to uphold. Still, we need to acknowledge the fact that the current Congress and Administration are rushing the nation toward bankruptcy.

This being the case, we could hope they would at least come to their senses regarding our debt and foreign spending sprees. Our nation’s foreign-held debt is at record highs and moving ever higher. Continuing to borrow money from Red China and others in order to pay “dues” to the United Nations and run “Plan Colombia” makes no sense at all.

Our whole carrot-and-stick approach to foreign policy makes no sense. The US government simultaneously gives money to Israel, and to Egypt. We send AIDS money to Africa while AIDS clinics in America shut down. “Millennium challenge” funding goes to countries which enact “market based reforms” as we push our own country further and further into a centrally planned economy.

Economic recovery will only come through financial prudence, savings and getting back to producing things of value again. But it seems to be a foregone conclusion that we are about to enact another government initiative to “stimulate the economy.” Instead, there should be some serious talk about cutting all of these foreign giveaway programs. But, alas and again, we should not hold our breath. Congress is still not close to being serious about ending its addiction to debt and spending, and is again faced with the deadly temptation to attempt to spend us out of a recession. We should not forget that in the 1930’s those types of efforts gave us the Great Depression.

Why, oh why can’t the rest of the world be as wise as those who live in Texas’ 14th Congressional District?

The Libertarian candidate for President in 2000 was Harry Browne. That year he released a campaign book with the title, “The Great Libertarian Offer“. The positive libertarian sentiment in that book was both educational and inspiring to me and many other liberty seeking individuals. There has been quite a bit of talk in the past year about the demise of the Republican party to the delight of loyal and liberal Democrats everywhere. This demise represents a great opportunity for libertarian ideas to either reinforce the Libertarian Party itself or modify the Republican Party’s neo-conservatism into libertarian conservatism.

I say opportunity because the outlook for liberty at this point in our country’s history is quite bleak. The popular political culture pendulum is swinging far to the left with Barack Obama’s pending victory. Following 9/11 Neo-conservative Right ideals were in vogue. The question remains what happens when the rebound occurs from the current move to the left? This is where libertarians can capitalize if the cards are played properly.

Read More »

Ron Paul was a guest on the Lew Rockwell Show on October 26, 2008 to talk about the current economic crisis. One of my favorite quotes by the good doctor was:

[Greenspan] has joined the gang of liberals and socialists to blame the free market for all the problems.

Listen to the MP3 of the interview, or via YouTube below:

It cannot be argued that the United States of America, once a free nation, is now clearly moving toward socialism.  Today’s article from the Ludwig von Mises Institute points out that we’re headed toward the same fate suffered by the Soviet Union: total economic collapse.

The recent financial crisis has renewed interest in old issues. The Bush administration has announced plans to buy $85 billion in preferred stock in what are (for the time being) private financial institutions, like Bank of America, J.P. Morgan, Wells Fargo, and Morgan Stanley. The total commitment by the Treasury is set at $250 billion. While this move by the Treasury Department into the financial industry is unique in American history, it has precedents elsewhere, and has been debated many times.

Karl Marx proposed “centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.” Years later, so-called “market socialists” like Oscar Lange, Abba Lerner, and H.D. Dickinson proposed state control over credit and financial capital. While these market socialists accepted trade and the use of money with consumer goods, markets for capital goods would be simulated and markets for financial capital would be wholly replaced by central planning. Capital investment would therefore be determined by state officials, rather than by competition for funds in financial markets. Lange was particularly clear about how the state would determine the overall rate and pattern of capital investment. State officials would set the overall rate of capital accumulation, instead of interest rates. State officials would also determine the pattern of investment, instead of profit-seeking capitalists and entrepreneurs.

Finish reading the article here…

Ron Paul is doing his best Paul Revere impression galloping around on the media horse yelling “Socialism is coming! Socialism is coming!” Is anyone listening or are his words echoing around in the cavernous minds of the “oh woe is me, it’s the government’s responsibility” crowd?

I’m reminded of a story I first heard in church during my Catholic school tutelage. Here I will recap that story as I remember it.

A devout Christian man and his family find out that a hurricane is coming to their area. A bus drives up to his house and he is asked to evacuate, but he replies, “No, God will save us” and he keeps his family in his house. The hurricane comes and the flood waters start to rise. He takes his family up to the roof of his house to escape the rising water. A rescue team on a boat float by and tell the man and his family to hop in. The man replies, “No, God will save us”. Now the water is rising above the roof of the house. A rescue helicopter flies overhead and a rope is dropped for the man and his family. The man waves the helicopter away yelling, “No thank you, God will save us”. The water rises above his entire family and they drown. The man angrily confronts God and asks, “Why didn’t you save us?” God answers, “I tried to save you three times. I sent you a bus, a boat, and a helicopter.”

Read More »