Month: May 2012

Flawless Victory

While the Ron Paul campaign has basically called the campaign off the fine liberty-minded folks decided to take over the Republican State Convention anyways:

Mitt Romney might be the Republican Party’s presumed nominee for president, but maverick candidate Ron Paul scored the bigger win Saturday at Minnesota’s state Republican Convention.

The Texas congressman’s backers seized control of the state convention, claiming 12 of 13 open delegate slots to the GOP national convention in August. The 13th slot went to U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, who failed to win it on the first ballot. Her opponent, a Paul supporter, conceded out of respect.

That’s right, we took 12 of the 13 delegate seats for the national convention. I’ve heard several stories regarding the reason the 13th seat was granted to Bachmann. It appears that her opponent didn’t hand in a political resume, which is required in the rules to get a seat. Instead of fighting this with an attempt to change the rules it was decided that Bachmann would be granted the seat as it would demonstrated “good will” to the Republican Party. You can tell I wasn’t running the show because I would have operated a scorched Earth police and went through with a rule change to get the Paul supporter the 13th seat. Either way it’s pretty good to see Minnesota, one of the strangest states when it comes to politics, pulling off another trick. We didn’t stop at the 12 delegates though, we also took most of the alternate seats:

Previously, 27 delegates were chosen. In all, 32 of Minnesota’s 40 delegates are confirmed to support Paul over Romney.

Let me also give an acknowledgment to my friend Nate Atkins:

“Absolutely not,” said Nathan Atkins, a Republican convention delegate and Paul backer from Minneapolis. “I really don’t think he’s that different than Barack Obama. He doesn’t represent change.”

Atkins was wearing a tinfoil hat, a nod to more traditional GOP activists who have ridiculed Paul’s backers as paranoid conspiracy theorists. He said if Paul isn’t on the presidential ballot, he’d likely vote for Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson.

Most of us in the Minnesota liberty movement fail to take politics seriously. Many of the Paul supporters at the convention wore red fezzes and referred to themselves as the Ancient Persian order of Mystic Republicans. Atkins went so far as to cover his fez in tinfoil to mock those who claim Paul supporters are just a bunch of crazy conspiracy theorists. They also had a Hunger Games theme going on:

I could never survive in the Republican Party because the higher ups take themselves too seriously. On the other hand the liberty movement is always quick to mock and ridicule to absurdity of The Party while having a ton of fun as well. I’m glad they did so well, especially considering the fact that the Paul campaign has basically abandoned us.

Let me close by saying it is an absolute honor to call so many members of the Minnesota liberty movement my friends. When reading through all the coverage of the state convention I could only smile when reading about the antics, statements, and other ongoings because so many of the “perpetrators” were personal friends of mine. I am in some of the greatest company living here in the Twin Cities and it makes all of the other crazy shit that happens here worth it.

I was Worried this Would Happen

Today is the first day of the Minnesota Republican Convention. As you read this delegates are currently in St. Cloud fighting over political matters. I didn’t go. After my experience at my local basic political operating unit (BPOU) convention I decided to swear off continued participation in this race. Part of it was just the monstrous nature of the big-wig Republican attendees, their desire for power at the cost of others was disgusting. Another part of it had to do with the Ron Paul campaign itself. There’s been something going on with the Paul campaign that didn’t sit right with me but I’ve been unable to put my finger on it. With the recent announcements and other news I’ve been slowly scrapping together the pieces of the puzzle are starting to come together. I posted about the recent announcements made by the Paul campaign.

It seemed entirely odd to me that the campaign would be sending out announcements that could easily be construed as the campaign being suspended and telling supporters that any hope of winning the presidential nomination is basically gone. What campaign in its right mind would tell supporters that the chances of success were basically none? Then I came across the following article and things started to make more sense:

Reince Priebus (the RNC chairman from Kenosha, Wisconsin), and the Republican National Committee (RNC) threw their support behind Mitt Romney after Newt Gingrich announced he would be suspending his campaign. Through the RNC chair, Reince Priebus, the RNC will help register voters and encourage outreach for Mitt Romney.

I’ve had no doubt that the Republican nomination process is fixed and that Romney is the anointed one for this year’s nomination. Between threatening states that sent “too many” Ron Paul supporters and several prominent officials of the Republican National Committee (RNC) openly stating support for Romney it has been obvious that the RNC will go to any length to ensure Romney gets the nomination. The statement released by Jesse Benton, the chairman for the Ron Paul campaign, shed even more light on the actions of the Paul campaign:

“In April, the RNC asked our campaign for our blessing to begin assembling the Victory organization Republicans will require to guarantee a win in the fall. Building such an operation is no small undertaking, and our Party needed to build in a few months what the incumbent president has been building for four years.

“The RNC offered to set up a joint fundraising committee with the Paul campaign and were very clear that if Dr. Paul became the nominee, the Victory Operation would be behind him 100 percent. They also were clear that they would hold off if our campaign objected. I gave my full consent for the RNC to move forward.

“Chairman Priebus has always treated Dr. Paul and our team with respect, and we appreciate his leadership. He has been an outstanding chairman and has our full confidence.”

It is unclear to me is Benton is entirely ignorant or corrupt. The agreement mentioned in Benton’s statement is obviously a sucker’s deal. While the RNC promises to completely back Paul if he gets the nomination they have no intention of allowing Paul to get the nomination. They’re making a bet because they already know the outcome. Did Benton agree to this deal because he believed the RNC was actually planning on playing fair or because they offered him something to advance his political career? The only evidence I have to the latter is circumstantial, Benton was the one who released the recent announcements that appeared to be hand crafted to destroy the morale of Ron Paul’s supporters. Since the only evidence I hold is circumstantial I’m going to assume the former, that Benton and other higher ups in the Paul campaign are naive and believe the RNC is willing to play fair.

Having leaders of the RNC backing Romney is pretty obviously a violation of the RNC’s own rules:

“Rule No. 11 Candidate Support
(a) The Republican National Committee shall not, without the prior written and filed approval of all members of the Republican National Committee from the state involved, contribute money or in-kind aid to any candidate for any public or party office except the nominee of the Republican Party or a candidate who is unopposed in the Republican primary after the filing deadline for that office. In those states where state law establishes a nonpartisan primary in which Republican candidates could participate, but in which the general election may not include a Republican candidate, the candidate endorsed by a convention held under the authority of the state Republican Party shall be recognized by the Republican National Committee as the Republican nominee.

(b) No state Republican Party rule or state law shall be observed that allows persons who have participated or are participating in the selection of any nominee of a party other than the Republican Party, including, but not limited to, through the use of a multiparty primary or similar type ballot, to participate in the selection of a nominee of the Republican Party for that general election. No person nominated in violation of this rule shall be recognized by the Republican National Committee as the nominee of the Republican Party from that state.”

Apparently they have been able to get away with it by offering the sucker’s deal to the Paul campaign. The RNC must have said, “Listen, if you guys don’t pursue this whole rule violation ordeal we’ll promise to back Paul if he gets the nomination.” Like suckers the Paul campaign apparently fell for it.

My uneasiness regard the Ron Paul campaign is finally starting to make sense. I’m not the only one disenfranchised with the campaign at this point, many of my fellow Paul supporters have expressed similar views. Yet many of Paul’s supporters have been creating justifications for the recent actions of his campaign, something I was worried would happen due to the amount of emotional investment many people have in his winning. The most common theory put forth by those who still support the campaign is that the recent actions are part of a master plan to lower the establishment’s guard so we can swoop in unopposed and claim victory. This theory doesn’t make any sense to me because the recent actions by the campaign have caused massive devastation to the morale of Paul’s supporters. Several delegates have even expressed refusal to continue attending conventions, actions that directly oppose the Paul campaign’s supposed goal of motivating as many delegates as possible to attend the RNC and take the Republican Party. If that is the strategy then telling delegates that the campaign is basically over isn’t going to advance the cause.

Another common theory being put forth by those desperately trying to continue believing in the campaign is that the way is merely being paved for Rand Paul’s run next election cycle. To that I say woopty fucking doo. I’m not a big fan of Rand. Many neocons will claim they like Rand better than his father because Rand makes sense. For the same reasons neocons like Rand I don’t. If the master plan has been to pave the way for Rand then I’m sorry I had any involvement in this campaign.

Others are claiming the goal of the Paul campaign has always been to reclaim the Republican Party and return it to its roots. Unfortunately there is no reclaiming the Republican Party, it’s a dying party and a poison brand. The big wigs in the party are bloody thirsty evangelicals who want nothing more than to bring a new crusade to the world. A majority of Republican Party members are mindless automatons who obey the commands of the higher ups and those commands have been to resist control from the Ron Paul supporters. Even if we do reclaim the party we’re left with the party. We will hold control over an empty shell. All of the crusaders will flee and likely establish their own party while we’ll be standing around holding a brand that is known for its opposition to civil rights, advocacy of war, and general authoritarian nature. Attempting to change this image will fail, poisoned brands generally can’t be salvaged. Nobody looks at the actions of a political party, they just agree with whatever propaganda they’re told to.

Either way it’s pretty obvious to me that many Paul supporters are actively disillusioning themselves with the campaign. They want to believe the campaign is attempting to do good so they come up with theories about the recent actions that support their desire. The majority who have been involved in the campaign seem to be willing to question the recent actions, even asking “What if…?” is met with resistance. Those of us standing in the corner asking, “What the fuck guys?” are being accused of devastating morale and attempting to undermine the campaign. Perhaps the latter accusation is true. I have no idea what the Paul campaign is doing at the moment nor can I see their goals. When I don’t know what somebody is doing I get edgy, when evidence indicates what they’re doing isn’t good are move to undermine the plan. The campaign hasn’t offered any valid justification for their recent actions so I have reason to believe they’re up to no good.

Perhaps I’m in a fairly unique position, I never really believed Ron Paul could get the nomination and thus watching this campaign crumble (at least appear to crumble) has had little effect. Part of me did hold up some hope that the good guys could win this time around but it was nothing more than a glimmer, and that glimmer still exists although it’s getting harder and harder to see. If my concerns are true, if there is chicanery going on in the Paul campaign, it will just prove my point that you can’t play the political game without getting fucked at some point.

As of this writing there is a money bomb going on at the Ron Paul campaign website. Usually these rake in a couple of million dollars, this one hasn’t even broke $300,000 yet (if it does break that please realize I wrote this article during the money bomb and likely didn’t have the opportunity to edit this portion before it posted). Obviously the recent actions of the campaign have had a vastly negative effect, the supporters are unhappy and less willing to send money or otherwise support campaign efforts. From where I stand it appears the Ron Paul campaign is the worst enemy of Ron Paul getting elected. They had a plan, claimed to be in the game until the end, and dropped the ball at the eleventh hour. Many supporters of the campaign have resorted to viciously attacking those who question the recent actions because facing the possibility of failure is too much for them to handle. When you’re no longer willing to question your cause, when you turn a blind eye to what’s going on around you, that is the moment you’ve lost and you know it. You don’t want to admit you’ve lost but you know you have.

Preventing You from Leaving

Last week I gave my predictions for France, most of which were pulled from the book Pictures of a Socialistic Future [PDF]. Pictures of a Socialistic Future was a took written at the end of the 1800s that property predicted many things that would happen in socialist countries. One of the predictions was the socialist state would face a massive exodus of people and would implement laws preventing unapproved departures from the country. Such laws have been implemented in many socialist countries and are put into place to keep wealth and labor in the country by force. Guess what? The United States is officially announcing plans to implement such laws:

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., has a status update for Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin: Stop attempting to dodge your taxes by renouncing your U.S. citizenship or never come to back to the U.S. again.

[…]

At a news conference this morning, Sens. Schumer and Bob Casey, D-Pa., will unveil the “Ex-PATRIOT” – “Expatriation Prevention by Abolishing Tax-Related Incentives for Offshore Tenancy” – Act to respond directly to Saverin’s move, which they dub a “scheme” that would “help him duck up to $67 million in taxes.”

The senators will call Saverin’s move an “outrage” and will outline their plan to re-impose taxes on expatriates like Saverin even after they flee the United States and take up residence in a foreign country. Their proposal would also impose a mandatory 30 percent tax on the capital gains of anybody who renounces their U.S. citizenship.

The process of preventing people from leaving the United States has been underway for a while. Earlier this year legislation was announced that would prevent those who owe taxes from leaving the country. Now the state is moving to make laws that will make it legal for the state to plunder a great deal of your wealth if you decide to renounce your citizenship. Ladies and gentlemen, it doesn’t get much more blatant than this.

You are not a citizen, you are not a free individual, you are a slave according to the state. In their eyes they own you, you are their property. Honestly, if you have any wealth whatsoever get the fuck out of this country now. The ship is sinking and the state is looking to transfer any and all wealth from the people to its cronies and agents before there is no wealth left to take. Eugene Richter warned us what socialism would bring in Pictures of a Socialistic Future and nobody felt it was worth heading his warning. Right now the state is targeting the wealthy because they have the most to take but you can rest assured that laws preventing the departure from the United States will only expand.

Also, the the Expatriation Prevention by Abolishing Tax-Related Incentives for Offshore Tenancy Act? EX-PATRIOT Act? Really? Really?! Who the fuck is paid to come up with these acronyms?

I hat tip to Snarky Bytes for this revealing story.

Some Ideas are More Worth Spreading than Others

The Technology, Entertainment, and Design (TED) conference is fairly well known by the denizens of the Internet. TED’s tagline is Ideas Worth Spreading, and the conference is supposedly about spreading new and innovative ideas. Most of my friends absolutely love to watch TED videos, and there is good stuff to be found, but the conference isn’t the open platform of ideas that many claim it to be. According to TED some ideas are more worth spreading than others:

If you’re plugged into the Internet, chances are you’ve seen a TED talk – the wonky, provocative web videos that have become a sort of nerd franchise. TED.com is where you go to find Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg explaining why the world has too few female leaders, or Twitter cofounder Evan Williams sharing the secret power of listening to users to drive company improvement. The slogan of the nonprofit group behind the site is “Ideas Worth Spreading.”

There’s one idea, though, that TED’s organizers recently decided was too controversial to spread: the notion that widening income inequality is a bad thing for America, and that as a result, the rich should pay more in taxes.

TED organizers invited a multimillionaire Seattle venture capitalist named Nick Hanauer – the first nonfamily investor in Amazon.com – to give a speech on March 1 at their TED University conference. Inequality was the topic – specifically, Hanauer’s contention that the middle class, and not wealthy innovators like himself, are America’s true “job creators.”

A transcript of Hanauer’s speech can be found here. Reading it I must say that Hanauer has a better grasp on the market than most venture capitalists and almost any politician does. For example, he understands that the rich aren’t really the creators of jobs because if it isn’t for consumer demand there are no jobs to be created:

That’s why I can say with confidence that rich people don’t create jobs, nor do businesses, large or small. What does lead to more employment is a “circle of life” like feedback loop between customers and businesses. And only consumers can set in motion this virtuous cycle of increasing demand and hiring. In this sense, an ordinary middle-class consumer is far more of a job creator than a capitalist like me.

Trickle-down economics is an idea often espoused by “conservatives” and the idea is that tax breaks and other state benefits given to the cronies wealthy will eventually “trickle down” to benefit the less wealthy. The claim is that the wealthy will have more money to invest into business and that investment will create jobs and economic growth. This theory falls flat on its face because it doesn’t take into consideration the fact that investing all the money in the world into the creation of businesses is meaningless if nobody can buy the products. What good would Samsung be if there was nobody to buy their televisions or phones? Would Remington be able to function if nobody purchased their firearms?

Capitalism is about mutually beneficial trade. It relies on everybody being a producer and a consumer. An auto-mechanic produces working vehicles by expending his labor to repair others’ vehicles. In exchange for this the owners of those vehicles exchange the product of their labor, usually in the form of money. If the vehicle owner didn’t have a vehicle there would be no purpose for the auto-mechanic. If the auto-mechanic didn’t exist the vehicle owner would find themselves having to purchase a new vehicle every time their current one needed maintenance or repair. The agreement between the vehicle owner and the auto-mechanic is mutually beneficial, they both gain from the transaction.

Tax breaks and other benefits for the wealthy don’t give the less wealthy any advantage because it doesn’t free up any of their money to be used to purchase goods.

Hanauer’s education isn’t complete unfortunately because he still finds himself stuck in a cycle of false economic ideas:

And taxing the rich to make investments that grow the middle class, is the single smartest thing we can do for the middle class, the poor and the rich.

There is no way to use taxes to grow the middle class. Taxation is money that goes to the state and the state lacks the market feedback mechanism so is unable to invest money wisely. The market feedback mechanism determines whether or not resources are being invested wisely through an often vicious cycle of finical success and failure. If you’ve invested your resources wisely, that is if you’re using resources to produce products and services consumers want, you will receive more resources to use. Apple has managed to produce products and services a large number of consumer want and have been rewarded by great deals of wealth. They have demonstrated the ability to use resources wisely and are now being trusted with more resources.

On the other hand entities that use resources poorly face financial ruin. The DeLorean Motor Company went into bankruptcy because the produced a single model car and not many people wanted it. General Motors (GM) would have followed if the state didn’t prop them up. In fact GM is a perfect example of the state’s inability to judge the soundness of investments. GM distributed their resources poorly and were punished accordingly. Their resources went into paying overly high wages, pensions, salaries of higher ups, and automobiles that weren’t desirable enough to make up for the other erroneous spending. All of this caught up to GM and they started hemorrhaging money. Continues loss of money is the market’s way of informing you that you’re doing something wrong and need to correct it. GM didn’t correct its problems and thus was facing bankruptcy. Had the market been allowed to work GM would have went under and their resources would have been put up for sale so other entrepreneurs could buy them and attempt to put them to better use. Instead the state injected a ton of taxpayer money into a business that demonstrated an inability to managed resources meaning those new resources are likely to be squandered.

The state gains its money through force and therefore doesn’t have to face the possibility of failure. When it fails to make productive use of resources it can just steal more, there is no possibility of failure until its victims run out of money. Because of this the state can’t grow anything, it can’t even create wealth. I don’t believe I even need to go into the fact that the state doles our resources to its cronies and thus the middle class will never have a crack of getting those resources.

Hanauer appears to be on the right track and may eventually learn this fact and finally rid himself of the economic fallacy that taxation of any kind is desirable. He is correct that giving tax breaks and other state benefits to the wealthy isn’t the key to creating a solid economy but he is incorrect that taxing the wealthy is a good solution. Eliminating the state’s involvement in all economic matters is the way to achieve economic prosperity. Unfortunately that idea will probably never be spread by TED if they’re not even willing to spread Hanauer’s idea.

Verizon to End all Unlimited Data Plans

Apparently Verizon is sick of playing second fiddle to AT&T’s general dickery. During an investor conference call Verizon announced that they would be eliminating unlimited data plans, even for customers who have been grandfathered in:

Verizon Wireless subscribers who have held onto their $30-a-month unlimited data plans will soon be forced to upgrade to a new tiered offering the company plans to launch this summer, according to the Web site Fierce Wireless.

Speaking at the J.P. Morgan Technology Media and Telecom conference today, Verizon Communications CFO Fran Shammo told investors that the company’s 3G unlimited data plans that customers were allowed to hang onto last year when Verizon switched to a tiered offering will soon go away entirely. Instead, the company will migrate its existing and new 4G LTE customers to a new “data share plan.”

Way to go guys, I think you’ve finally made a move that will gain you more hatred than AT&T generally receives. I really hope the big four carriers; AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, and Verizon; thank the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for enforcing the current monopoly of cell phone service in the United States.

If the FCC didn’t maintain a monopoly on spectrum and dole it out in auctions that bring in billions of dollars the current large carriers would actually have to face competition. Unfortunately no small company can enter the cell phone market because they can’t afford the billions of dollars needed to license spectrum from the FCC so we’re stuck with a cartel of four big assholes and a small handful of other carriers (who usually license the rights to use the big fours’ towers).


Image obtained from Chris Lyspooner’s Facebook page

So Much for a Straight Forward Case

The Zimmerman case has been extremely difficult to follow because of the vast amount of incorrect information be spouted by media outlets. Now that an official investigation is behind held to determine whether or not Zimmerman’s trail will go forward we’re getting more and more evidence supporting Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense. First information about Zimmerman’s injuries were released:

Medical records showing that George Zimmerman was treated for a fractured nose and cuts to the back of his head after fatally shooting 17-year-old Trayvon Martin will likely bolster Zimmerman’s argument that Martin attacked him, CBS News legal analyst Jack Ford said on “CBS This Morning” Wednesday.

The records came to light Tuesday. CBS News has also confirmed they show that Zimmerman had a pair of black eyes when he was examined by a doctor Feb. 27, the day after he shot Martin in a gated Florida community. Zimmerman, who has claimed self-defense, faces a charge of second-degree murder in the shooting.

“This now allows the defense to show up in the courtroom, let George Zimmerman tell his story and bring in a medical expert that says, ‘Black and blue under the eyes, broken nose, cut on the back of the head,'” said Ford, “and the defense can argue that’s consistent with George Zimmerman being attacked by Trayvon Martin, and then the Stand Your Ground defense comes into play.”

Now information has been released indicating damage to Martin’s knuckles that is consistent with the claim that he was punching Zimmerman in the face and that Zimmerman fired at point-blank range:

Cell phone records from Zimmerman that include text messages he sent up to one month after the shooting

There are also two surveillance videos, one from the 7-11 where Martin bought Skittles and an ice tea, the other from the clubhouse in the gated subdivision where Zimmerman shot him.

The special prosecutor’s case also includes Zimmerman’s medical report the day after the shooting. It listed a broken nose, two black eyes and a cut in the back of the head.

A source also told CBS News an unreleased police report noted Zimmerman’s sweatshirt had “grass stains, and was wet on the back.”

Details from Trayvon Martin’s autopsy show the bullet entered the left side of his chest, and shattered the ventrical, one of his heart’s two large chambers but the round did not leave his body.

It’s unfortunate that many people have such an emotional investment in this case that they are unwilling to acknowledge the possibility of Zimmerman’s innocence. I’ve already heard conspiracy theories that claim the doctors who testified to Zimmerman’s injuries were paid off, that the coroner fabricated the evidence of damage to Martin’s knuckles, and that the police have been continuing to fabricate evidence. Apparently Florida is so incredibly racist that it’s not even difficult to get so many people to hop on board this little conspiracy.

This is why the court of public opinion is a bad thing to rely on. If we had relied on public opinion then Zimmerman would likely have been hanged. Even if he’s ruled innocent based on the evidence being brought to light it won’t matter, many people have convinced themselves that Zimmerman is guilty and that law enforcement has generated a massive conspiracy to cover up a race-based crime. No matter what evidence is put forward these people will never believe Zimmerman is innocent and they may decide to exact “justice” after the trial is concluded or dismissed.

Whether he’s ruled guilty or innocent, Zimmerman’s life is probably ruined.

The NDAA Blocked in Court for Now

Some rare good news has finally emerged from our court system, parts of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) have been blocked:

A federal judge temporarily blocked enforcement of a part of the National Defense Authorization Act that opponents claim could subject them to indefinite military detention for activities including news reporting and political activism.

U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest in Manhattan today ruled in favor of a group of writers and activists who sued President Barack Obama, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and the Defense Department, claiming a provision of the act, signed into law Dec. 31, puts them in fear that they could be arrested and held by U.S. armed forces.

[…]

Forrest’s order prevents enforcement of the provision of the statute pending further order of the court or an amendment to the statute by Congress.

Of course I expect an overturn or an amendment to the statute by Congress soon. I highly doubt the state is going to let a minor technicality get between it and total tyranny.

Self-Interest

I spend a great deal of my time writing posts talking about the benefits of capitalism. My primary goals in doing so are to explain why there is no need for a coercive state and to couter all the socialists out there that claim capitalism is some kind of evil blight upon the Earth. Capitalism is a workable solution because it relies on the self-interest of individuals whereas socialism relies on the altruism of individuals. Unfortunately for the socialists altruism isn’t a common human trait, even apparently altruistic acts are usually ones of self-interest.

The Mises Institute website has a good article titled Another Case of the Anticapitalistic Mentality It’s a criticism of Michael Sandel’s book What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets. In it Sandel makes several common socialist claims against the free market, basically claiming the introduction of money into a situation somehow corrupts it. An excerpt from the book that was discussed in the article deals with blood donations:

The answer [to Arrow’s objection] is that commercializing blood changes the meaning of donating it. For consider: in a world where blood is routinely bought and sold, is donating a pint of blood at your local Red Cross still an act of generosity? Or is it an unfair labor practice that deprives needy persons of gainful employment selling their blood? (p. 126)

This is a common criticism of the free market by those who oppose the idea of capitalism. Somehow receiving compensation for donations changes the meaning and that change of meaning is undesirable. What these people fail to realize is that gifting blood is no more altruistic than selling it. I know that’s a pretty bold claim but bear with me.

Throughout most of your life you’ve been taught that it’s better to give than receive, that sharing is caring, and that the highest honor one can attain is sacrificing self for another. It’s beat into us that giving is the ultimate act of good. Therefore, societally speaking, we can achieve the most recognition and congratulations by giving something to another. What do people generally want in life? Acceptance and recognition by their fellow man.

Of course everybody believes they are above that. They want no recognition from society, they merely want to help somebody in need because that person is in need. We still return to the fact that acts performed to help another without any expectation of recognition are acts performed in self-interest. Humans act to alleviate discomfort. Everything we do ultimate derives from discomfort. If we were entirely comfortable, if all our needs were met and we were entirely content, we would not act. To alleviate the discomfort of hunger we eat, of bordom we read or socialize, of sickness we take medication, etc. Empathy, being able to share the feeling of others, causes discomfort. When you see somebody suffering and you are able to emphasize the feelings you experience are discomforting so you move to alleviate the sufferer’s discomfort to alleviate your own. Seeing a beggar on the street can stir different emotions in people. Some will think about the hungry state of the beggar and through their empathy they will be discomforted and desire to help that person. Others will experience guilt, one of the most discomforting feelings humans can experience, for having more than the beggar and move to alleviate their discomfort by giving money to the beggar. We seek to relieve our own discomfort by relieving another’s.

Whether it is to gain societal recognition or to alleviate discomfort caused by empathy, acts of altruism are performed in self-interest. Socialists will often claim that self-interest is evil and that relying on self-interest is what causes all problems for humanity. Self-interest isn’t good or evil, it’s merely the nature of all living creatures. Working entirely in self-interest at the cost of others isn’t good for society but humans have developed empathy that balances the scale of self-interest vs. society. There are those who lack empathy and do things that most of us find deplorable but the majority of us have some ability to empathize (and society ostracization of those without is often enough to prevent them from harming others). I don’t think society would work if a vast majority of people were without empathy. Hell, societies themselves are built upon self-interest. Humans are generally social creatures and desire to be around other humans and we also wish to take advantage of dividing labor.

The bottom line is humans act based on self-interest. Whether that self-interest comes from compensation, social recognition, or to alleviate our own discomfort is irrelevant. I would argue that there is no altruism, at least not the type socialists generally advocate. The idea that acts performed out of self-interest instead of altruism are somehow dirty or evil is absurd because that would mean all acts are dirty or evil. We need to get away from the idea that self-interest is undesirable.

An obvious criticism by those who oppose acts of self-interest is that advocating people act in self-interest will justify acts of self-interest at the expense of others. Fortunately acting in self-interest at the expense of others isn’t a common desire for humans so we needn’t worry heavily about such issues. Think about the vast amount justifications most people have to make in order to overcome their internal feelings against harming others in order to harm others. People have to convince themselves that acts harmful to others are for some kind of “greater good” or that the person they’re harming is bad in some way. When somebody smashes the window of a bank they justify the action to themselves by claiming the bank owners are evil. When somebody murders another they often justify the act by claiming their victim was evil. When politicians rob from people they claim it’s for the greater good. We spend great deals of time twisting our beliefs so that we can justify acts that are harmful to others because human nature is to do the opposite, we desire to help each other because seeing suffering in others causes discomfort to ourselves.

Still we’ve developed safeties against those who would harm others. Self-defense comes in physical and societal forms. If somebody attacks you you flee or fight back. If somebody steals from you you either take your property back or seek compensation through the legal system. We’ve attempted to make acting in self-interest at the expense of others costly so that it’s no longer in one’s self-interest to act at the expense of another.

Capitalism works because it relies on our inherit self-interest while socialism has failed time and time again because it relies on altruism. Implementing a system that requires us to oppose our very nature is destined to fail. Trying to regulate the free market by restricting what can and can’t be sold can never work. If there is a market it will be fulfilled, if not by the regulated market then it will be by the black market.

Appreciating Human Achievement

Humans are awesome. I know this goes against the misanthropes who view humanity as some kind of plague that should be destroyed for the sake of Mother Gaia but I’m not a misanthrope. In fact let me state the following: fuck misanthropes. If you do any research into the achievements of humanity you can only walk away awed. I feel the best way to truly gain an understanding of humanity is to research the mundane things we take for granted today. My love of wristwatches has lead me to lightly study horology, the art and science of measuring time. Measuring time is something people take for granted today as every DVD player, cell phone, computer, microwave, car, and GPS unit has a build in way of measuring time (usually referred to as a clock). Heck most of these devices don’t even have to be set anymore, instead they automatically sync with various atomic clocks built around the world. This hasn’t always been the case though, measuring the passage of time used to be quite a feat.

I’ve started reading Shaping the Day: A History of Timekeeping in England and Wales 1300-1800. The first chapter talks about the scientific achievements of Galileo Galilei (I hope to Odin that everybody knows who Galileo is and that my link to his Wikipedia page is entirely pointless). During the last 1500s and early 1600s Galileo was studying motion. In order to study motion he needed a way to measure the passage of time, unfortunately accurate clocks didn’t exist at that time. What’s a man to do? In the case of Galileo he used two methods: measuring the passage of time by the beating of his heart and by using a song with a repeating beat. Most scientists today would call such methodology unscientific but they have the benefit of highly accurate clocks that measure the passage of time based on the transition frequency of atoms. It’s easy to claim something is unscientific when you’ve enjoyed 400 years of scientific advancement.

Time brings up the though of hours, minutes, and seconds for most people. If you study horology you learn quickly learn that those measures of time, like all measures of time, are arbitrary. Why does one second need to take, well, one second? It doesn’t. The primary thing you need when measuring the passage of time is repetitiveness. Beats in songs are repetitive and thus can be used to measure the passage of time in a useful manner. Your heart rate, although far less accurate as it’s susceptible to variances based on bodily conditions, can also be used to measure the passage of time. Speaking of accuracy, it’s another thing that’s subjective. In the case of Galileo’s experiments the accurate of song beats was plenty for what the needed to do. On the other hand computers need to measure time in the span of microseconds so using the beats of songs, with the possible exception of extremely fast metal, isn’t going to cut it. To get around this we developed other methods of measuring time including the back and forth oscillation of a spring-loaded wheel, vibration of a quartz crystal that is subjective to a minor electrical current, and the aforementioned transition frequency of an atom.

The amount of ingenuity involve in telling time is phenomenal. Studying things we take for granted today really helps you appreciate what humans are capable of and what we have overcome in a short time in this universe. In roughly two million years we’ve gone from barely being able to harness fire to harnessing the power of nuclear energy. We’ve gone from a species whose only transportation was our two feet to landing on the moon. Humanity is awesome and you really need to look at the history of achievements we find entirely mundane today to appreciate that fact. Instead of trying to surpress human ability we need to let is flourish. We need to appreciate what our species can accomplish.