In Defense of the Free Market

Having read enough books at this point to understand Free Market economics quite well, I think it's time to dismiss many of the criticisms that run about "Capitalism" and how it is necessary for government to intervene in them though this has been done by many, far greater people than I. At the end I'll give a couple links for anyone who wants some extra info about the ideas expressed. However, before going on I have to make one thing clear, when I speak of Capitalism and the Free Market, I'm not talking about our current system. Our current system is a mixed economy that becomes more and more totalitarian with each year, and closer to collapse with it. It'll be easier to just address separate topics than to ramble on and on about a ton of misconceptions in one giant paragraph so I'm going to list out the fallacy first then address why it's wrong.
1. Without government saying what a business can do you would have a ton of Monopolies.
I hear this one a LOT and usually they site the oil companies back in the 1800's who were the reason we have Antitrust laws now. To kill this one, we have to identify that there are two types of Monopolies; Coercive monopolies and simple (for lack of a better term) monopolies. Simple monopolies are like the Food Lion in Seven Lakes. The fact is that Food Lion keeps its prices low enough and the population there is so small that there would be no use for another business, like a Winn-Dixie to come in. Now say Food Lion tripled its prices tomorrow. Then a business man may look at that and say, "I could make a good amount of money if I went in there and had my prices as low as they did yesterday." And with that you would destroy the monopoly. These monopolies are often only held because of the smart decisions of the business owners.
A Coercive Monopoly is a monopoly where a business raises its prices above the market value arbitrarily and is not challenged. This is only, ONLY possible if entrance into a certain market is RESTRICTED. And this can only be done by, wait for it......... Government. Only with the banner of the "Greater Good" can these monopolies be created and that is carried by money hungry beuracrats.
Often you will hear someone say, "But the trusts in the 1800's were immune to competition." That would have once been understandable given the scares of that time, however we have come far in the last 100 years in economic thought and it is now ridiculous. They often site Rockefeller's Standard Oil Trust and such as proof of Coercive monopolies in the Free Market. They would be wrong. What is never mentioned is that the Petroleum Industry at that time was less than 1% of the Gross National Product at the time. It was barely one-third the side of the national Shoe Industry! The fact is there wasn't as much a need for oil. It was much like the Food Lion in Seven Lakes, simply not enough money to be made. The companies that joined the trust did so because they would have been fighting for very little profit and would have all suffered greatly.
The simple fact is that Monopolies are the boogey men in the closet, something feared but not really there. They are only an issue when the government gets involved and decides who wins and who loses.
2. Without Government Regulations companies would go crazy and millions of people would die!
If you watch enough t.v., you know that this one is wrong. How many times have you seen lawyer ads asking if you have been a victim of a bad drug or been hurt using a certain product? With the above argument, this shouldn't happen. The FDA would supposibly be able to stop this from happening. And even if they admitted that it wasn't always efficient, they claim it would be better than not having such an agency. How so? The fact is that a bad drug may go through the line and the FDA doesn't take it out of production. A hundred people have heart attacks and what happens? "Oh, it happens. The Company should have done more tests." No one is fired, except maybe in the company, but everyone in the FDA is safe. There is no incentive to be absolutely precise! There is no profit to be won or loss in this situation. They have nothing to lose.
The same goes for the TSA. When the underwear bomber got through security, no one got fired! Now we have tons of groping agents working for the government who can't be fired whether they catch a terrorist or not. The fact is the airlines have no choice in what they want to do for security. Even if the agents don't do a good job, it won't be the TSA that is blamed, it will be the the airlines.
Why not let the company that has something to lose take control of these issues? Who is more likely to do better at security? The Government agent who can't be fired, or the company payed employee who will lose his job and benefits if he screws up? The same goes for the drug companies to a point. Why not allow private companies to test drugs and give labels to certain drugs that they find as safe? The fact is that these companies would only last as long as they did a good job! Also the drug companies would need these private companies approval or people would feel less inclined to buy their product, therefore the drug industry would also have to get better.
Some would say, "Well the drug companies could pay off the other company!". Why would a company that makes a living off of approving only good products risk its own profit for a possibly lethal drug? They have no need to do it! It would steal away their credibility and their profits.
3. The Industrial Revolution was the Golden Age of the Free Market and it was horrible.
If I had a nickel everytime. First off, the Industrial Revolution, primarily in England wasn't a Free Market. A Free Market can not exist in an Aristocracy where Kings, Princes, Dukes, Duchesses, Lords and such get an annual income for their blood line. Though it was extremely close to a Free Market, it wasn't one. Secondly, life wasn't that horrible. Yes, many worked long hours for very little pay however that was what their labor was worth to a large degree. The people back then had very little education and the work was relatively simple.
Child labor is often abhorred as a great evil. The fact is that because of the Capitalist system, thousands of children were living longer. In England from 1730-49, 74.5 % of children born in London died before age 5. In 1810-29, the number had dropped to 31.8%. The fact is that many of the families were growing vastly bigger and there was a need for more income. If the children didn't work, their siblings might starve. Also the work the children were often given were simple and usually they recieved food while doing the work. Is it picturesque? No, quite far from it. However this was far better a life than those given to the children who were born into the world of the serfs, or those who didn't work in the factory. What is never mentioned is that the worse off children were those who were under the clergy run (governmentbody) orphanages who were virtually sold into slavery by the authorities.
Many would say that the reason the children left the factories was because the government stepped in. This is another fallacy. The fact is when the labor of the adults became more valuable, the need for child labor disappeared. Most of the first acts in England against Child Labor were against chimney sweeps, somethin obscenely unclean and not related to the factories, and then the government run orphanages. When they went after the newer factories (which were cleaner and far safer), the fact is the business men who had just invested a good supply of capital in a new factory would rather pay adults then go through the regulation process of the children. The inspectors of the factories however were known for going to the new ones more often than the older buildings which were far more hazardous and out of the way. This led the owners of more downtrodden factories to hire children and more children being susceptible to injury. Those who didn't get jobs were more likely to starve and couldn't contribute to the family anymore.
These are all the ones I can address right now, but if I think of anymore I will get them down or add them. Just so everyone knows, most of these arguments are based on those presented in Ayn Rand's Capitalism: The unknown Ideal. It's a great read and I suggest it to everyone, it's the most beaten up book in my possession right now.
Here are some great links to for more info:
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=index
http://mises.org/
http://www.yaliberty.org/

My Economic Plan

Slash and Burn Plan

15% Flat Income Tax (Will be reduced by 5% after the first year to 10%, then by another 5% by the second year, then again after the third year, and by the fourth year the income tax will be at 0%)
3% Sales Tax (Will remain at 3%, no change over time)
7% corporate tax (Will remain at 7%, no change over time)
Elimination of the current tax code will remove all tax-cuts, tax breaks, and subsidies, effectively ending legal tax evasion.

First Year:
1. Closing of the following departments:

• Environmental Protection Agency
• Department of Energy
• Department of Education
• Department of Commerce
• IRS (Upon the Income Tax becoming 0%)

2. Repealing of all regulations passed by Congress and enforced by the EPA since 1990
3. Opening of all federally held land to oil drilling (Land will be purchasable at market rates, effectively denying inept companies from obtaining special privileges)
4. A Balanced Budget Amendment will be passed within congress then sent to the states for Ratification.
5. Defense Spending Cuts –

• Reduction of Defense budget to 2002 levels – 422.18 billion dollars
• Closing of 50% of U.S. held foreign bases – Open to purchase by country the base is present in.
• Removal of all troops from Iraq and Afghanistan
• All Military actions publicly known and unknown will be ceased in foreign countries

6. A Federal Move to Remove ALL Illegal Immigrants

• ICE will investigate all places of business
• States will be empowered to deport any illegal brought into custody
• If States refuse to act, Federal Government will step in
• Total Elimination of “Sanctuary Cities”
• Those who are aiding Illegal Immigrants will be imprisoned for a minimum of 1 year (no chance for parole or reduced sentence)

7. Reduction of Minimum Wage to 1997 level - $5.15
8. Removal of taxes on Tips
9. Unemployment-

• Will be limited to 4 months
• Money received will be equal to an 8 hour work day at minimum wage
• Cannot be extended past 4 months

10. Medicaid-

• Totally transferred to the States
• Removal of ALL Federal regulation

11. Medicare-

• All new recipients will be given the chance to direct money toward former Insurer

12. Social Security-

• All currently at, or above, age 55 will receive promised benefits
• Those at, or above age 45 will receive a maximum of 75% of the benefits promised at age 68.
• Those at, or above age 35 will choose to either receive a maximum of 50% of the benefits promised at age 70, to pay into Personal Federal Social Security accounts or can participate in a State, County, or Town created system.
• Those at, or above age 18 can participate in Federal personal account systems, State, County, or Town created system, or can opt out of systems totally
• State, County, or Town safety net systems will be allowed. Upon entering said system, the citizen will be exempted from paying into the Federal Social Security collection.

13. Document of Exemption

• Document that allows the signer to exempt themselves from paying into Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Welfare in exchange for signing away rights to said programs will be available.

14. Legalization of Marijuana
15. Removal of ALL subsidies, tax-cuts, and tax-breaks in ALL economic sectors
16. Further Federal Cuts

• All Federally granted Education money
• Recreation and Sporting Services
• Protection of Biodiversity
• Community Development
• General Public Services
• Transportation
• All Foreign Aid
  (Total savings from ending these = $359 Billion)

17. Repeal of Anti-Trust Laws (Effectively nullifying all influence created by the courts)
18. Welfare

• Increased focus in Fraud investigation
• Congress shall set incentive for the finding of Welfare fraud

19. Federal Employee Salaries

• All those making above $100,000, will be reduced to a salary of $100,000
• Total Freeze in salary after prior point, no increases in any circumstance

Christopher Hitchens: An Obituary

                The philosopher Voltaire once said, “He was a great patriot, a humanitarian, a loyal friend; provided, of course, he really is dead.” 

                There is perhaps no better way to express the opinion one might have of the famous (or infamous) polemicist.  In his life as the world renowned essayist, author, speaker, and commentator the man was someone who was loathed by many and those who called him friend were probably quite hesitant in their announcement of it.

                As someone who called himself a Marxist, he said that he believed that Capitalism had its beauty.  As the anti-war Baby Boomer, he later called for intervention into Iraq and against Islamic Fascism.  A fan of the same Thomas Jefferson who obtained the Virginia Statue for Religious Freedom, he showed little tolerance for anyone who believed in a deity.

                 With this mongrel of ideology, the very verbal Hitchens assailed those on the Right and the Left.  To him neither Reagan nor Mother Teresa were above his assaults.  When asked in one interview what he thought of the death of Reverend Jerry Falwell he answered, “It’s a pity there isn't a hell for him to go to.”

                 Perhaps an act of cosmic irony, Hitchens developed cancer of the esophagus a year ago.  Now, he is dead.  Reverence is not something that I believe him deserving; he didn’t grant that even to the families of the dead he attacked. 

                 As Gore Vidal’s “heir”, he made the clown Vidal desirable.  As an author, he made illiteracy respectable.  And as a human being, he made the animals seem civilized.  If there is any emotion that we should shed for the man, it should be pity.  For it is a pity that he ever spoke at all. 

My Experience With the Occupiers in D.C.

    Recently I was in D.C. for the Defending The American Dream conference run by Americans for Prosperity.  It was really a great conference.  I met many very interesting people, discussed the issues, and got to hear speeches by some great speakers.  It was brilliant being able to meet the hundreds of other activists across this country who want to get rid the current "Change".  However, while the conference was going on, the rats of D.C. (no, not the politicians) decided they'd like to make a statement.

     Occupiers of the Occupy D.C. group actually crowded against the doors of the convention center on the night of Nov. 5th.  Unfortunately we Tea Partiers forgot our Guy Fawkes masks and thus these illiterates from the Occupy D.C. crowd thought we should be imprisoned in the Convention Center.  They locked arms and attempted to bar us from leaving.  I'd decided I'd watch Atlas Shrugged Part 1, which was being showed in the Center, and not waste my time trying to push through the unwashed masses (the smell lingered for while).

     Can anyone find the irony in the fact that these roaches are saying their rights are being taken?  I mean, does being forcibly imprisoned inside a convention center sound like something the Founding Fathers would have thought right?  But wait, I forgot, the 2000 people there are the 1% (though most are middle class).  They are the evil people, I included, who want to give corporations more power to destroy the rights of the poor.  Then it's okay to steal their rights. 

     Anyways....
     While I watched the movie, these Occupiers turned violent.  They surrounded an elderly couple and wouldn't let them out.  When the couple attempted to move, they were pushed down by the protesters.  These two were later taken to the hospital by an ambulance.  Peaceful my ass.

     Later on during the night, the morons decided to stand in the middle of the street.  Funnily enough, a driver was given the greenlight (literally, there was a traffic light on one end), and instead of letting the protesters get into his car like they tried to do, he ran through them.  Yes, he hit 3 of the occupiers with his car and kept going, still doing the proper speed limit.  None of them suffered any major injuries.  Lucky for them I wasn't the driver.

     What is the point of this?  Quite simple.  I have discovered that I can't write these people off so easily.  They are now controlled by the radical left irrevocably.  They are violent.  They are the Mob.  They are a group of self-entitled social leeches.  I am now counting down the days that snow hits D.C..  My new Christmas wish is that frostbite finds each of these people.

Wallstock isn't so Grassroots

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OCCUPY_SUPPORT?SITE=AZYUM&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-11-01-17-12-45

     Alas, it is sad but true (not all that sad though) that our little protesters who we all thought were self-organized, self-controlled, and grassroots citizens are not so much any of those.  In fact, like many have been saying, they are funded and directed by organizations that should NOT suprise us.  As the Yuma Sun reported, they have recieved over $500,000 (a lot of money for those guys who just walked out of their parents' basement) from supporters, but for some reason they don't trust themselves with the money.  Go figure.  So they have turned to the Alliance for Global Justice, one of those good ol' Mom and Pap organizations who just so happens to have been a supporter of the Sandinista Communist movement. 

     When it comes to who they use to get their butts out of jail, who better than the National Lawyers Guild?  Of course we all know that lawyers are known for their stand-up-patriotism so these protesters must be in the right, right?  And on the matter of guilds, who do you suppose has been helping to organize all of these protests?  We've been told that it's all grass roots, but also according to the Yuma Sun, nope!  Our friends at the Unions are once again handing out their labor for the just causes of the little guy. 

     It is a fact that these loons aren't in their right minds.  Therefore they'd have to have help from other Left wing organizations.  Moveon.org is a known contributor, and I think we can all say unison who's the guy funding them.  George Soros. 

     This isn't a new movement, it isn't even a new game.  The players have simply busted out new pawns. 

Herman Cain "Knows His Place

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/msnbc-analyst-herman-cain-black-man-who-knows-his-place_604145.html

     (Sorry for the time away, been very busy)

     Whenever a strong man, or woman of a different ethnicity decides they are Conservative or Libertarian, you know there is going to be trouble.  Why?  Quite simply because the Democrats have claimed themselves to be the "protectors of the little guy".  They thrive off the idea that they are somehow the only ones who care for minorities.  The idea that a black man or woman  is a Republican or wants a free market is so shocking to them, they are simply stunned, until he or she doesn't retract their statements.  Then, they go on the offensive. 
    
     This is what's happened here.  No longer are they stunned, they are either seeking damage control or trying to explain it to themselves why someone who is part of a minority would be a conservative.  This is where the racism of the Elites comes out.  They think that because Cain is acting outside the generality of most blacks in America it gives them the clear to make him out to be the white man's puppet.  Instead of giving him any intellectual credit to speak of, they cast him as someone who is simply doing what the "White" people want him to.  Tell me again who the racists are?
   
     But then let's be honest with ourselves.  Does it surprise us in the least bit that such ilk is coming from our media?  

Rep. Jesse Jackson's Patriotic Jobs Plan

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/14/rep-jesse-jackson-calls-on-government-to-hire-all-unemployed-americans-for/

     Oh how I love the Democrats in Congress.  They show how most of us Americans are incredibly normal. 

     So apparently Jesse's gotten the great idea of hiring ALL the unemployed in America.  Sounds great right?  And get this, for $40,000 a year.  Why stay on unemployement?  You can be so much more in our buddy's plan here.

“We put people to work cleaning up communities. We put people to work through a civilian conservation corps, through a Works Progress Administration because the hour demands it,”

     Makes sense, no?  I mean employing around 15 million people for nearly twice as much as minimum wage has got to get the economy going.  It's only going to take a measly $6,000,000,000 (billion) dollars, from the Federal Government of course.  Ohhhh, but it just gets better!

“It could be a five-year program,” he said. “For another $104 billion, we bail out all of the states. For another $100 billion, we bail out all of the cities.”

     God, that almost, almost sounds Utopian no?  Everyone has decent jobs, indefinite Job security, all the states are in no fear of default as well as the cities.  I wonder, if perhaps this guy has a few philosophers in mind who make him feel all warm and funny about this plan???? 

     Of course this is just speculation.  I could be totally wrong.  I mean the guy could really be a big fan of Stalin, or Trotsky, maybe even Lenin.  He could simply be a follower of all those Valiant men.  What isn't there to admire in these guys?