Tuesday, April 5, 2011
...the Feds abolished the Internal Revenue Service. I love April. It's a time of renewal, not only in nature, but in my spirit. Then the IRS comes along and ruins my seasonal jubilation. I noticed that Scream 4 is coming out on April 15th. Somebody has a sense of humor.
When you're surrendering your hard earned money, the best you can do is keep a sense of humor about it. I play games in the for section of my payment check. This year I decided to write in "for: confiscation." It seems appropriate. After all, Merriam-Webster's first definition for confiscation states: to seize as forfeited to the public treasury.
The best I can do is stay upbeat facing the evils of usurpation as I try to spread the idea of freedom by voluntary allocation and its benefits to society.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
I just signed up for a history course taught by Thomas Woods. American Origins: From the Colonies to the Constitution which begins on March 5th. I am really looking forward to it.
I am currently in the middle of my first Mises Academy course How to Think: An Introduction to Logic taught by David Gordon. I must say it is exceptional. If you haven't taken a course from the Mises Academy yet, I highly recommend it. The price is cheaper and the content is better than most brick and mortar university courses.
Sunday, January 9, 2011
I am a huge fan of well-known people that take the time to respond thoughtfully to a seemingly unimportant stranger. So, I had a question about a source in Thomas Woods book The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History. I obtained his email and asked the following question:
On page 50 of the book there is a box that says "What the Press Said." In it there is a quote as following:
"[It was] merely an incident of the real controversy...[for] possession of the Federal Government is what both North and South are striving for."
-The New York Times in its description of slavery, 1854
When I try to find this source online, all I get is this page: http://www.nytimes.com/1860/07/04/news/the-slavery-question.html
If you read it, there is no mention of the first part of the quote in the article only the second part followed by "and the leading motive of the South is a determination to regard Slavery as their paramount interest, and its protection and perpetuation as their settled policy."
Something is definitely fishy. I tend to trust you far more than I do the New York Times, so I am wondering if I have not found the source you were referring to or if the NYT changed it?
He then graciously responded with:
Mr. Morr:For your service to me Tom, I will recommend your latest book Nullification to everyone I know.
Grr. This just calls to mind the struggles I had with the publisher during the editing of that book. They wanted to substitute a different box for the one I had, so they chose this. I did not catch that they actually got the date partially wrong; I was referring to three NYT columns, one from 1854 and two from 1860 (May 30 and July 4). It is Eric Foner himself, an extremely pro-Lincoln and pro-Union historian, who notes the significance of the Times' concession: "The New York Times went so far as to claim that slavery itself was 'merely an incident of the real controversy,' since 'possession of the Federal Government is what both North and South are striving for.' In this it was only echoing the views of Webster and other northern Whigs of the 1840s who had opposed the annexation of Texas and the Mexican War on the grounds that any addition of slavery territory and subsequent admission of slave states would upset the balance of sectional power in the South's favor." (Foner, Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men: The Ideology of the Republican Party Before the Civil War, p. 192.)
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Perhaps. After a barrage of irrelevant comments from supporters of the Zeitgeist Movement on this blog, I did a little research into what they are all about. After reading a good bit of bantering over at the Mises forum, I can say that I am really unimpressed with the Zeitgeist position and their idea of what is called resource based economy. I have a general distrust of anything or anyone that has a disregard for logic and evidence-based argumentation. As indicated by one individual on the Mises forum, logic has been replaced with a sort of mystic hubris:
"lol. I will not debate this, because it is senseless to argue, considering those who argue seldom change their minds. lol. I doubt many will be able to understand the ZM concepts from where they are now. That's ok... it's not a matter of superiority or inferiority... it's all about cultural conditioning, which our present culture is expert at... And that will change anyway because of continuing information flow."
What a ridiculous string of words. It would be nice if these people were as open-minded as they claim to be. A little research and inquiry into the minds of Mises, Hayek, Rothbard et al might glean some understanding on economics and praxeology. They might come to the realization that resource based economy backed by a super computer that will bring superabundance to society is a fantasy that might be fitting for a Marxist science fiction, but not reality. The same poster on Mises forum later said:
And since I am putting in question the very foundation of this forum, I'm not surprised you would find my words useless. But I didn't come here to argue about this stuff, so I am bowing out. I do not wish to step upon your 'religion'. (which is another conceptual system people mistake for reality...)
That is an interesting assertion considering that is exactly what this "movement" appears to be - a religion.
Update (8/30/10): Robert Murphy took a stab at RBE over at Mises today. We share the same concerns.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Congress handles our federal budget about as poorly as one could ever imagine handling a personal budget. The government is teaching our children the worst possible way to handle money and budgets. Here is a list of some of the lessons children might learn from government:
- 1. Spending money you don't have is stimulating.
- 2. Paying off debt is not important.
- 3. Managing money poorly will get you a raise.
- 4. Prudent shopping is unnecessary.
- 5. Work is optional for income.
- 6. Stealing is okay as long as the ends are deemed worthy.
- 7. Long term goals have no worth.
At face value, these lessons seem absolutely absurd. However, some (especially governments) seem to think it is the quintessential recipe for successful economy. I tend to think that what is actually good for my household economy is also good for the economy as a whole. When I economize, it is a good thing.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Here are just a few articles recently written by various economists that I think are beneficial to read:
Is Capitalism Something Good?
Consumer Spending Doesn't Drive the Economy
Neither Evil Nor Incompetent
Thank Goodness for Capitalism
Some Social Aspects of Medical Socialism