Death By Democratic Socialism

I’ve just heard the neocons of The Five, on Fox News, lambaste the late Hugo Chavez for the crime levels in Venezuela.

Not that the panel said this, but populist, revolutionary movements that “empower” the masses can give way to lawlessness.

Obscene levels of crime in South Africa are a by-product of the overnight dismantling of what was once a hierarchical society.

The meme about crime in South Africa is that it’s apartheid’s fault (“the white man made me do it”). It’s a script that has no base in reality, and is the product of the twisted minds of liberals there and here. Never mind that South Africa was inhabited by genocidal tribes prior to the implementation of the policies of apartheid.

Except to maintain a vigil outside the ailing Nelson Mandela’s hospital—the news media refuse to report honestly about crime in South Africa.

Amy Chua did a remarkable job in linking violence to the outbreak of unfettered democracy in countries with a market-dominating ethnic minority. But Amy Chua is too bright to make it onto American TV (except to discuss, and be derided for, her non-progressive parenting).

Back to the subject: From the perspective of the flaccid Five, the link between lawlessness and democratic socialism is obvious in Venezuela, but not in South Africa.

By the way, what is America if not a social democracy?

In the US, a poll is the most popular argument for a policy. Might makes right. “Polls show that the American people want Obama care.”

“So bloody what” is what our Founding Fathers would retort. “You can’t have everything you want; and you can’t have what doesn’t belong to you.”


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint


The Survivalist’s Guide to ‘Obammunism’ & Beyond

“The Survivalist’s Guide to ‘Obammunism’ & Beyond” is the current column.

“No statist lies are safe from his scrutiny,” writes Lew Rockwell about economist Thomas J. DiLorenzo’s latest book. What follows is an excerpt from my conversation with professor DiLorenzo about, ”Organized Crime: The Unvarnished Truth About Government,” and the timeless truths to which it speaks.

5. ILANA MERCER: You write: “At the heart of the U.S. government’s continued takeover of the health care sector of the economy was a law passed during the Obama administration that would eventually drive the private health insurance industry out of business and transform it into a de facto nationalized industry.” Elaborate. Since, as you repeatedly warn, the natural laws of economics cannot be repealed, what will these health care exchanges achieve? How will they invariably be funded? What will be the cost to business? To the millions who’re losing coverage? Who will ultimately fork out for the per-head fee imposed on medical plans?

THOMAS DILORENZO: The Obama version of health-care socialism forces insurance companies to cover people with expensive diseases without charging them higher rates to compensate for the additional risk. This effectively will force the insurance companies to pay out billions in health care costs, and then the Obammunists will impose price controls on the industry because that’s what socialists always do once they intervene in a market by forcing businesses to offer something for nothing, thereby driving demand through the roof. The price controls will cause massive bankruptcy, at which point the argument will be made that what is needed is “single-payer healthcare,” a euphemism for health-care socialism or government-run monopoly. In the meantime, they seem to be imposing hundreds of relatively small, hidden taxes to come up with the revenue to keep the scheme going.

6. MERCER: “The Obamacare Survival Guide” is a best-seller on Amazon. The market is producing survivalist literature to help Americans navigate the treacherous shoals of this law. What does it tell you? Like me, you must know plenty of Obama-heads (doctors too) who shrugged off the idea that further centralizing health care—a modest healthcare expansion totaling $2 trillion, I believe—would cost them anything at all. As The Lancet recently confirmed, in the UK’s National Health Service funding is inversely related to patient outcomes. You speak of “inputs” and “outputs.”

DILORENZO: I cited a study by the late Milton Friedman entitled “Inputs and Outputs in Medical Care,” published by the Hoover Institution some twenty years ago. In it the Nobel laureate economist showed that, historically, as government became more and more involved in health care by taking over hospitals and funding Medicare and Medicaid, inputs – in terms of money spent – skyrocketed while “output” in terms of patients served declined. He spoke of something called “Gammon’s Law,” named after a British physician named Max Gammon, who noticed that with healthcare socialism in England, increased “inputs” in the form of massive amounts of money spent always seemed to disappear “as though through a black hole” with little or nothing to show for it in terms of health care.

7. MERCER: You touch briefly on the “private component of GDP.” Free-market thinkers get that the private economy alone produces wealth. But no. GDP is a political construct, defined, tracked and manipulated by the D.C. political machine. Unpack the GDP gambit for us, down to its deceptive components.

DILORENZO: Including government spending in the definition of GDP was a creation of John Maynard Keynes, who defined it as C (Private Consumption) + I (Private Investment) + G (Government Purchases) + X-M (Net Exports). In so doing, Keynesians concluded that the most prosperous year in American economic history – 1946 – was actually a year of revival of the Great Depression with a precipitous drop in economic activity because of the huge decline in federal government spending after World War II. Of course, this was NOT a year of depression but an explosion of private investment, consumption, and job creation.

8. MERCER: About that elusive economic recovery: My colleague Vox Day (who sadly called it a day on WND) argued that, “The Great Depression 2.0 will be worse than its predecessor.” Day chalked that up to today’s unprecedented levels of debt, consumption and credit, private and public. It’s a hunch. But I think you’ll disagree.

DILORENZO: No one can predict something like this, especially since today’s economy is vastly different from the 1930s. Capital markets are much more sophisticated, for one thing, although government regulators by the thousands do their best to destroy them – and with them what’s left of American capitalism. Predictions like this always ignore the resilience of entrepreneurs. As the Austrian Business Cycle theory of Mises and Hayek contends, it is the boom period where all the damage is done in the form of “malinvestment” – in the latest bust this was mostly in real estate. During the recession or depression is when entrepreneurs are forced to become more efficient, more inventive, more creative – or else. This is how the Japanese recovered from something much worse than a depression – long years of war and the dropping of atomic bombs on their country – in a little over a decade.

More on “sequesteria,” tax loopholes and Obamacare, at www.ilanamercer.com, where the conversation with professor DiLorenzo continues.

Read the complete column, “The Survivalist’s Guide to ‘Obammunism’ & Beyond.”


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint


UPADTED: Ciao, Chavez (Wealthy Commie Croaks)

The “loss” of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has hit hard at MSNBC. (Rachel Maddow is sure to turn on the waterworks during her show.) How do you omit the pejorative “socialist,” in a piece about the death of one? Look to one Tracy Connor, staff writer at NBC News, who finesses an economy partly nationalized or under threat of expropriation with upbeat words: Chavez was a “self-styled populist,” who initiated “government reforms that championed the downtrodden,” and who “took greater control of the state-run oil company.”

More control than complete state control? More control than the nationalization of industry?

“A kind of very personalized socialism” is Eugene Robinson’s spin. Robinson is a writer at the Washington Post and an MSNBC pundit. Chavez, like the Cuban brothers, followed a “pure ideology model,” Robinson noodled.

Robinson proceeded to underscore the broad popular support Chavez enjoyed among his people, and then … contradicted himself (Robinson did; Chavez was consistent), saying that Chavez’s popularity ran counter to his many anti-democratic policies.

Robinson is no different to almost every single American voter, politician and chattering-class member. He equates crude majoritarianism with justice. If the masses want something—the masses must be right. Where mobocracy appears manifestly unjust, reason people like Robinson, this must be because it veered from the express wishes of the upright majority that unleashed the People’s Power.

News flash: Chavez was on his way to securing leader-for-life status because he had the support of the masses. Democracy—rule by absolute and unfettered majorities—is dictatorship by any other name.

More eulogizing for “Hue” courtesy of Eugene Robinson: Chavez was “quick witted,” “loose,” “idiosyncratic.”

UPDATE: Via Nick Gillespie come some facts about the “affable” commie who croaked, including that Chavez had amassed a fortune of $1 billion.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint


BHO Inaugural & MLK Day: Two Poxes In One Day

We are on the receiving end of two poxes in one day: BHO’s Inaugural and MLK’s Day.

Founding Father Thomas Jefferson was found unfit to have a holiday named for him. Instead, we celebrate a man whom America’s most engaging first lady deemed “terrible,” “tricky” and “a phony.”

Jacqueline Kennedy, as revealed from audio recordings of Mrs. Kennedy’s historic 1964 conversations on life with John F. Kennedy, held a low opinion of Martin Luther King, the man America has since deified. Jackie was unafraid to say as much.

There were many reasons not racist for which to dislike MLK, not least of them was the man’s dalliance with communists. “His associations with communists” is why Jacky’s husband, hero of Chris Matthews’ last book, ordered the wiretaps on King.

Mrs. Kennedy’s brother-in-law, Robert Kennedy—recounts Patrick J. Buchanan in “Suicide of a Superpower”—”saw to it that the FBI carried out the order.” Among his other endearing qualities, the not-so enchanting Martin Luther King had “declared that the Goldwater campaign bore ‘dangerous signs of Hitlerism.”

Indisputably, MLK set the tone for “assailing America as irredeemably racist” forever after. Other brothers have built on MLK’s work to sculpt careers as professional race hustlers.

Read Into the Cannibal’s Pot for more on MLK. But here is a short excerpt from the sub-chapter, “What Would Martin Luther King Jr. Say?:

The historical elevation of the democratic socialist Martin Luther King Jr. above the Founding Fathers is significant, since Jefferson’s libertarianism is inimical to King’s egalitarianism—never the twain shall meet. The attempts by many a modern conservative to conflate the messages of the two solitudes don’t pass muster. That King advocated a color-blind society is a pipe-dream exploded by historian Thomas E. Woods Jr. “Contrary to the sentiments he expressed in his famous ‘I Have a Dream’ speech, King favored racial quotas. In fact, he called for massive government spending [on blacks] to make up for centuries of discrimination against them—‘a broad-based and gigantic Bill of Rights for the Disadvantaged.’ Late in his life he grew more radical, calling for a socialist system in America.”


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint


Thoughts On Gun Debate, Republikeynesians & The Practice of Proctology

GUN LOBBY MADE ‘EM DO IT. Have you noticed how Democrats and their media lapdogs counter arguments for the natural right to self defense? They blame the “gun lobby.” Accordingly, it is not the gun owners who assert this right, but a monied gun lobby. This variation on the ad hominem argument allows these statists to bypass the debate about the right to defend life, liberty and property.

HOW LIKE DEMOCRATS. In arguing their case, tit-for-tat Republicans use the exact arguments their opponents use. Thus, instead of making a point against affirmative action and for individual merit, you find Fox Rinos like Dana Perino and Kimberly Guilfoile asking, “Where are the minorities” in Obama’s cabinet?

THE OBAMACARE SURVIVAL GUIDE. It’s a best-seller; # 47 on Amazon. I am sure that, like me, you know Obama-heads (doctors too) who shrugged off the idea that a further centralization of healthcare by “Obama’s Politburo Of Proctologists”— a modest healthcare expansion totaling $2 trillion—will cost them anything at all. I’m already feeling The Care. How about you? TAWE (The Ass With Ears) has sent the health care we had to hell in a handcart, for the ostensible benefit of less than ten percent of the population. In any case, if this “2,700 page law” made life easier, would the author of the ObamaCare Survival Guide be selling so many guides to so many perplexed people?


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint


Pennsylvania Dreaming

It pays to coast in Pennsylvania, where, if you earn $29K, the government taxes others in order to give you $28K worth of welfare.

Err on the side of ambition and aim to earn $55K—and you’ll end up paying $5K in taxes, netting $50K. Work out which pay grade “pays” better!

Coming to your state or to a state near you. The plague of living parasitically is spreading.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint