Month: February 2013

Oh Krugman, You’re Always Good for Laughs

Paul Krugman has to be one of my favorite people in economics. Every time he speaks about economics, which is claims is his field of expertise, he says something so incredibly dumb that it makes one laugh our loud. In his latest opinion piece in the New York Times he claimed that Austrian economists are akin to cultists:

Substance aside — not that substance isn’t important — Austrian economics very much has the psychology of a cult. Its devotees believe that they have access to a truth that generations of mainstream economists have somehow failed to discern; they go wild at any suggestion that maybe they’re the ones who have an intellectual blind spot. And as with all cults, the failure of prophecy — in this case, the prophecy of soaring inflation from deficits and monetary expansion — only strengthens the determination of the faithful to uphold the faith.

What makes this statement so funny is that every one of those accusations can be aimed at Keynesian economists. Keynesian believe they have access to a truth that generations of classical liberal theorists have somehow failed to discern. Even in modern times the followers of Keynes believe that war is good for the economy. What they fail to see, as Frédéric Bastiat pointed out in 1850, is that which is unseen. When a Keynesian sees a destroyed building they see economic stimulus waiting to happen. In their eyes rebuilding the structure will employ people and require materials, which will result in economic growth. They fail to see that the people and materials used to rebuild a destroyed structure could have instead been used to build a new structure. Instead of merely replacing that which was destroyed real economic growth, that is the creation of new wealth, could have occurred.

Keynesian also go wild at any suggestion that maybe they’re the ones who have an intellectual blind spot. Whenever the programs they advocate fail they don’t admit they were incorrect, they merely claim that the program wasn’t done hard enough. When printing money (often referred to as quantitative easing) failed to stimulate the economy the Keynesians claimed that the Federal Reserve simply failed to print enough money. The Federal Reserve is now printing $40 billion a month because their last two bouts of printing new money failed to get the economy on track. Even with so much money being printed the economy continues to falter and the Keynesians aren’t admitting their theory is incorrect, they’re blaming the Federal Reserve for not printing more money.

Failing prophecies also strengthens the beliefs of Keynesian economists. Keynesians claimed that printing money was the solution to the economic depression and now that they’ve been proven wrong they hunker down and demand that more money must be printed. They never stop to consider that their predictions may be wrong. When it comes to economics Keynesians are the masters of demanding the same failing programs be tried again, only harder.

The best part of Krugman’s column is the final sentence:

It would be sort of funny if it weren’t for the fact that this cult has large influence within the GOP.

Honestly, that sentence would be sort of funny if it weren’t for the fact that it has absolutely no bearing on reality. Show me a single member of the Republican Party that has studied and advocates Austrian economics (and now that Ron Paul is retired he no longer counts).

Mainstream economics has failed, in part, because its practitioners try to shape economics facts to fit their hypothesis. Consider unemployment. Keynesians are quick to claim that the creation of government programs is the solution to increasing unemployment numbers. When the government created programs to employ people the unemployment rate failed to drop so the Keynesians in the state redefined unemployment. Entire sections of the unemployed population were removed from the statistic and that allowed the state to report improved numbers. The state now reports, what it calls, the U3 statistic, which doesn’t include individuals who have been unemployed for more than one year (removing those individuals from the statistic is justified by claiming those individuals are no longer looking for work and are therefore unemployed by choice). By massaging the numbers the Keynesians were able to make the economic fact of employment fit their hypothesis and therefore claim to be knowledgeable in economic matters.

A Sign of the Times

I think the creation of practice targets depicting small children and pregnant women and marketing them at police departments is a sign of the times:

What if I told you police in your town could desensitize themselves to the idea of shooting a (armed) child, pregnant woman, or young mother, for just a couple of bucks? The “No More Hesitation” series from Law Enforcement Targets Inc. offers exactly that. For less than 99 cents per target, police can shoot at real-life images “designed to give officers the experience of dealing with deadly force shooting scenarios with subjects that are not the norm during training.”

What practice targets somebody uses is none of my business. If shooting at pictures of armed pregnant women is your thing I don’t really care (although I would find it kind of creepy). With that said I think it speaks volumes that a company sees a demand from police departments for such targets. Read the company’s justification for the targets:

The subjects in NMH targets were chosen in order to give officers the experience of dealing with deadly force shooting scenarios with subjects that are not the norm during training. I found while speaking with officers and trainers in the law enforcement community that there is a hesitation on the part of cops when deadly force is required on subjects with atypical age, frailty or condition (one officer explaining that he enlarged photos of his own kids to use as targets so that he would not be caught off guard with such a drastically new experience while on duty). This hesitation time may be only seconds but that is not acceptable when officers are losing their lives in these same situations. The goal of NMH is to break that stereotype on the range, regardless of how slim the chances are of encountering a real life scenario that involves a child, pregnant woman, etc. If that initial hesitation time can be cut down due to range experience, the officer and community are better served.

The company hopes that these targets will increase the reaction time of officers facing armed children or pregnant women. How often do officers face such situations? It seems that such situations would be relatively rare and, therefore, would warrant some hesitation. Our society appears to have come to a point where officer safety is put above and beyond any other consideration.

In closing I will leave you with the following thought. If police officers were really meant to be protectors it would be understood that the job is necessarily dangerous. When your primary job is to protect you must take more time to analyze situations in order to determine if force is necessary. This requirement to analyze situations puts a protector at an unavoidable disadvantage. On the other hand if police officers are really meant to be expropriators (thieves) for the state then it would be understood that the job is necessarily dangerous but for other reasons. People don’t like being stolen from and will often defend themselves when somebody attempts to take their stuff. Because of this thieves must be willing to employ force quickly upon any sign of resistance. A thief that is unwilling to use force against any resistance will soon find themselves with nothing. If police officers are being trained to employ force upon any sign of resistance are they truly protectors or thieves?

Republican Party Loses Its Monopoly on Members Saying Stupid Things Regarding Women and Rape

During the last election the Republican Party had an apparent monopoly on members saying stupid things regarding women and rape. Earlier this week the Republican Party lost its monopoly when a Colorado Democrat declared that women shouldn’t have firearms because they may shoot somebody because they wrongly feared that the person was going to rape them:

“It’s why we have call boxes; it’s why we have safe zones; it’s why we have the whistles — because you just don’t know who you’re gonna be shooting at. And you don’t know if you feel like you’re gonna be raped, or if you feel like someone’s been following you around or if you feel like you’re in trouble when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop … pop a round at somebody,” Salazar said.

In the opinion of Salazar women shouldn’t have a firearm because they were mere slaves to their emotions. What makes Salazar’s statement even dumber is the fact he believes call boxes, safe zones, and rape whistles are effective defenses against rape. A call box does you no good if you can’t reach it, safe zones exist in name only, and rape whistles do nothing to actively deter a rapist. Of course Salazar’s sentiment isn’t unusual for a statist. Statists generally believe that the average person is too irrational or stupid to make their own decisions and must have their decisions made by the state. In fact Salazar’s apology does nothing to indicate he believes otherwise:

Salazar apologized on Monday in a statement.

“I’m sorry if I offended anyone,” Salazar said in the statement. ”That was absolutely not my intention. We were having a public policy debate on whether or not guns makes people safer on campus. I don’t believe they do. That was the point I was trying to make. If anyone thinks I’m not sensitive to the dangers women face, they’re wrong. I am a husband and father of two beautiful girls, and I’ve spent the last decade defending women’s rights as a civil rights attorney. Again, I’m deeply sorry if I offended anyone with my comments.”

Note that he wasn’t sorry for implying women are too irrational to possess a firearm, he was merely sorry that he said something that was found offensive by some people. These are the types of people who are referred to as leaders by so many. We’re told that these people know what’s best for us and that if they make a mistake we’re supposed to beg them to reconsider. When you listen to the people who comprise the state and look at the decisions they make it’s almost impossible to justify statism.

According to Chicago Police Superintendent McCarthy Gun Rights are a Danger to the Public

Surprising nobody the Superintended of the Chicago Police Department (CPD) stated that gun rights are a danger to public safety:

On a Sunday talk show, as reported by the Illinois State Rifle Association, police Superintendent Garry F. McCarthy said that firearm owners who lobby their representatives, or who donate money to political campaigns, for pro-Second Amendment issues are guilty of corruption and of endangering public safety.

This is only one step away from labeling gun rights advocates of terrorists, which McCarthy will likely do sometime in the near future. Regardless of labels it’s hard to take McCarthy seriously on public safety. He heads the police department of a city where homicide rates are increasing in spite of the general decline experienced nationwide, officers won’t respond to 911 calls unless they decided an immediate threat to life exists, and reports homicides that occur indoors and outdoors separately in order to make the numbers look better. If McCarthy had any valid incite regarding public safety you would think the homicide rate in Chicago would be decreasing, police officers would respond to 911 calls, and homicides would be uniformly reported. It’s also hard to take McCarthy’s accusation of corruption seriously when he advocates for the disarmament of the general populace but fails to provide them protection. Demanding that the general populace be at the mercy of Chicago’s criminal element creates a valid reason to accuse him of being on the mob’s take.

Smashing the Surveillance State

Here in Minnesota the goons commonly referred to as politicians are looking to increase their rate of expropriation by reintroducing red light cameras:

A group of lawmakers is proposing a bill that would allow cities to use cameras to catch drivers who run red lights. The bill, which was introduced yesterday in the House and Senate, would also allow law enforcement personnel to use cameras to catch people who are speeding.

In 2007 the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that red light cameras are unconstitutional because the tickets were linked to a driver’s license, not to the motorist who committed the violation. Minneapolis city officials were forced to refund millions of dollars after the court ruled the law unconstitutional.

Supporters of the new bill say they think technology will address those concerns because the cameras will capture pictures of both the license plate and the motorist.

Were this to pass the constitutionality of the law would likely come into question again. Unfortunately challenging the constitutionality of a law takes a great deal of time and money and there are no guarantees that the results will be favorable. On the other hand there are extralegal options available. With the rampant use of Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) cameras in the United Kingdom (UK) a new movement has sprung up called Camover:

It started in Berlin: Anarchists, donning black bloc attire, hit the streets at night in pairs, small groups or alone to smash and dismantle the CCTV surveillance cameras adorning the city streets.

Since the use of surveillance technology is becoming widespread throughout the world it’s not surprising that the movement has spread beyond the UK:

The anti-surveillance project quickly spread throughout Germany, to Finland, Greece and hit the U.S. West Coast this month. A group identifying itself as “the Barefoot Bandit Brigade” released a statement claiming to have “removed and destroyed 17 security cameras throughout the Puget Sound region,” with ostensible photo evidence published alongside. “This act is concrete sabotage against the system of surveillance and control,” wrote the group’s statement, adding that the Camover contribution was also intended in solidarity with anarchists in the Pacific Northwest currently in federal custody without charges for refusing to cooperate with a federal grand jury.

While I shun the destruction of property I also don’t believe the state can legitimately acquire property. The state acquires property through taxation and taxation is nothing more than theft. If you don’t pay your taxes you’ll likely be kidnapped and put into a cage or have a portion of your paycheck stolen each pay period. Because of this I believe it’s the right of the state’s victims (tax payers) to do as they please with the state’s property. My feelings regarding this are even stronger when the state’s property is used to further expropriate wealth from the populace, which is what red light cameras do. Were this law to pass I suspect, and hope, Camover would become prevalent in Minnesota. Minnesota, and the United States in general, needs more actively civil disobedience. We’re living with the results of using the political process to preserve liberties and, as you can see, no meaningful increase of liberties has occurred since the founding of this country.

Current Gun Control Bills Being Proposed in Minnesota

Minnesota Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance (MNGOCRA) has put together a list of gun control bills currently being proposed at the State Capitol along with MNGOCRA’s rating for how bad the bills are for gun owners. As it currently stands the “assault weapon” and standard capacity magazine bans are tabled but prohibiting private sales will be rigorously pursed:

The Minnesota Senate will not act to ban assault weapons or high-capacity ammunition clips this year, a DFL leader said Monday.

Sen. Ron Latz, DFL-St. Louis Park, who is chairing the Senate’s gun hearings this week, said he will focus on closing the loopholes in background checks and leave the issue of banning weapons or ammunition to Congress.

“The assault weapons ban and high-capacity magazine ban proposals are highly divisive,” said Latz, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Legions of concerned gun owners turned out for three days of hearings on gun issues last week, and Latz said such bans also do not have strong support from law enforcement.

On the other hand, he said, the idea of filling loopholes in background checks has strong public and police support, and he believes it can pass this year.

“Law enforcement does have broad consensus in favor of universal background checks, closing loopholes in existing statutes,” he said. “I want to focus on what has broad public support.”

In all likelihood the politicians weren’t intending to pursuer the “assault weapon” and standard capacity magazine bans in a serious manner. Those bills were probably the bait whereas the prohibition against private sales is the switch. The state has a history of presenting very bad legislation, getting the serfs to beg them for leniency, and then presenting legislation that appears to be less egregious. It’s an effective strategy because it allows the state to grab more power will making the serfs breathe a sigh of relief because things didn’t turn out as bad as they could have.

With that said, the “assault weapon” and standard capacity magazine bans may be pursued during a lame duck session or as an amendment to a “must pass” bill at a later date. One thing is certain, the state isn’t going to allow the serfs to remain armed permanently. Armed serfs are harder to expropriate from and the state exists to expropriate.

Colorado House Passes Four Gun Control Bills

It appears that gun control is advancing in Colorado:

Limits on the size of ammunition magazines and universal background checks passed the Colorado House on Monday, during a second day of emotional debates that has drawn attention from the White House as lawmakers try to address recent mass shootings.

The bills were among four that the Democratic-controlled House passed amid strong resistance from Republicans, who were joined by a few Democrats to make some of the votes close.

I’m not going to advocate that gun owners in Colorado start betting state Senators to vote against the bills, obviously that tactic hasn’t delivered any goods so far. Instead I’m going to urge gun owners in Colorado to make it known that they will not comply with any new gun control laws. Few things stand to embarrass a politician more than blatant disobedience by the general populace. Such blatant disobedience helps to tear down the illusion that the state enjoys the support of the people and the state needs to keep that illusion alive. Because of this need the state is less likely to pass legislation that it knows will be openly ignored by the general populace. I believe it would be more productive to inform Senators in Colorado that they can pass gun control laws but those laws will be openly disobeyed.

Strong Leaders

One phrase that is beginning to piss me of is, “We need to elect strong leaders.” Why is everybody looking for something to lead them? Whey is everybody obsessed with finding the best master to serve? Why are children taught that the best thing they can do is go to college and work for somebody else? Why do people run to politicians to solve their problems? Why do people believe politicians have a right to rule over the people? From our earliest years in school we’re taught to obey those who claim authority and to follow those who lead. Litte, if any, time is spent encouraging children to become entrepreneurs. Teachers never tell their students to disobey those who claim authority. In fact they’re told that those who claim authority have a legitimate claim and that that claim should be recognized.

Truth be told we don’t need leaders, we are leaders. We don’t need to elect strong leaders, we can lead ourselves. If I could only give one piece of advice it would be this: stop seeking masters to serve, become your own and refuse to comply with anybody who tries to make themselves your master.

A Pet Peeve I Share in this App-Oriented Age

I love smartphones. Ever since I started carrying around a Palm Treo 700p I realized having access to the collected knowledge of humanity from a pocketable device was glorious. Back then the limited hardare of portable devices required the use of mobil optimized websites. Fortunately we’ve evolve from that point in time and now our smartphones are able to display full websites. Unfortunately we have another problem, every website on the planet seems to believe requiring users to download a special application is far better than allowing directe access to their website from a mobile device. They’re wrong. Applications have their places. Games, personal information management, and e-mail clients are useful to have installed on your phone but requiring the installation and use of an application to gain access to news articles is not a smart design decision.