Category Archives: The State

Conservatives Adopting Lefty Language About ‘Income Inequality’

Business, Capitalism, Conservatism, Economy, Federal Reserve Bank, Individualism Vs. Collectivism, Private Property, The State

A more meaningful index than “income inequality”—it implies that income equality is the thing to strive for, heaven help us!—would be the correlation between the increasing balance sheets of the central banks of the world and so-called increasing wealth discrepancies.

Conservatives rarely argue the morality of capitalism and individual liberty. If they do debate, it is about the utility of freedom to the common good. The entire impetus of Republican-Party operatives is to keep up with the issues the Democrats introduce to distract from the destructive effects of galloping statism. So if the latter decry “income inequality,” the former affirm that they too worry themselves sick over whatever it is the Democrats are droning on about.

Today, Fox News reported gravely that the “World’s richest 85 people have as much as bottom half the population.” Similarly, this Townhall.com writer assures his readers that “Inequality is a Conservative Issue.”

“The Capitalist Professor” George Reisman is having none of it. He writes “In Defense of Business Fortunes and the Destructive Effects of Imposing Economic Equality,” at www.twitter.com, @GGReisman:

1. A fortune is accumulated by means of earning a high rate of profit on capital and heavily saving and reinvesting it year after year.

2. The high rate of profit is achieved by introducing newer, better products or producing existing products at a lower cost.

3. Sooner or later, competition brings down a high rate of profit to the general level. To go on earning it, further innovation is necessary.

4. For example, to maintain its high rate of profit, Apple has had to repeatedly improve its products and introduce several major new ones.

5. Had Apple stood still, its initially very profitable products, made obsolete by competition, would now be selling at huge losses.

6. The high profits are generally invested in the means of producing the very kind of products in which the innovations take place.

7. For example, Apple’s profits are invested in the expanded and improved production of Apple’s products.

8. Thus, business fortunes under capitalism represent ever better, less expensive products produced with capital constituted by those fortunes.

9. The fortunes originate in profits and are used as capital. Both ways they serve the general buying public. They also pay wages and salaries.

10. The existence of fortunes under capitalism benefits everyone in his capacity both as a buyer of products and seller of labor.

11. Imposing economic equality requires the confiscation of high profits. It would abort the earning of fortunes and stifle economic progress.

12. Advocates of economic equality know nothing about profits, innovation, or capital. They believe that wealth is a pile of consumers’ goods.

13. The capitalists, whom they depict as fat men, allegedly have too much of this pile. Some of it must be given to the starving masses.

14. Thus, imposing economic equality is also a policy of seizing capital in order to consume it—eating the seed corn and being impoverished.

15. Advocates of economic equality are wilfully ignorant of economics. They are fueled by envy and resentment, biting the hands that feed them.

16. Socialism/Communism is their philosophy. Stalin and Mao are their heroes. Famine, slave labor camps, and mass death are their legacy.

Rand Paul: ‘If You Like Your Privacy You Can Keep It’ (NHAHAHAHAHAHA!)

Barack Obama, Constitution, Homeland Security, Regulation, Terrorism, The State

It is not about calibrating the NSA’s infractions on the right to privacy, it’s about keeping that right.

Sen. Rand Paul’s description (the line above is my own) of the gist of Obama’s tweaks to the National Security Agency’s surveillance program should be punctured by maniacal, loud laughter, the kind used by your vintage movie villain: “NHAHAHAHAHAHA!” In essence, intimated Sen. Paul, Obama is promising that, “If you like your privacy you can keep it.”

On the odd occasion that he’s good, Rand is very good. “It’s not about who holds it,” he continued, “I don’t want them collecting the information.”

That’s all there is to it.

Then Paul went and spoiled it all by saying something stupid like, “Obama’s heart really is in the right place,” and that his “motives are not bad.”

Full Text of Obama’s Speech on his plans for “Surveillance With A Smile.”

Surveillance With A Smile

Barack Obama, Homeland Security, Regulation, The State

Barack wants to win Boobus back with his trademark bedside manners. The president still thinks that a slushy speech is all it’ll take to get Boobus Americanus to submit again—and who can blame Obama? It’s worked so far.

We’re talking about the “National Security Agency’s bulk collection of telephone data from millions of people.”

“In August, media-enabled megalomaniac Obama told a rapt press corps that, in his magnanimity, he’d be prepared to ‘jiggle’ his surveillance apparatus here and there to better allay unnecessary fears (‘provide greater assurances,’ as the president put it).” Recent contradictory court rulings (detailed in “Quacking Over Ducksters As Freedoms Go POOF”) have sped things up. The Dictator will issue his NSA decree tomorrow, Friday.

Via the AP:

On Friday, Obama will unveil a much-anticipated blueprint on the future of those endeavors. His changes appear to be an implicit acknowledgement that the trust he thought Americans would have in the spy operations is shaky at best. His focus is expected to be on steps that increase oversight and transparency while largely leaving the framework of the programs in place.
The president is expected to back the creation of an independent public advocate on the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which approves the bulk collections and currently only hears arguments from the government. And seeking to soothe international anger, Obama will extend some privacy protections to foreigners and increase oversight of the process used to decide on foreign leader monitoring.
In previewing Obama’s speech, White House spokesman Jay Carney said Thursday that the president believes the government can make surveillance activities “more transparent in order to give the public more confidence about the problems and the oversight of the programs.”

The offending party (BHO and his bandits) gets to nominate an advocate to advocate for the victim (the spied upon).

Sounds fair.

The Unchallenged Man Of The Year

Constitution, Fascism, Homeland Security, Technology, Terrorism, The State, Uncategorized

Those who are not suspended in the moral abyss with mainstream media already know that Edward Joseph Snowden is the best of America. (Included in the septic mainstream are the interchangeable females on a Fox News idiot’s extravaganza called ‘The Five.’ Said a nimble mind by the name of Andrea Tarantula: ‘If the [National Security Agency] are competent with my information; they can have it.'”)

“At 29, Snowden upended the National Security Agency on its own turf,” heroically bringing to light how—contrary to the Bill of Rights, the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, in particular—the NSA had instituted “a global surveillance system that cast off many of its historical restraints after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Secret legal authorities empowered the NSA to sweep in the telephone, Internet and location records of whole populations.”.

One of the positive outcomes of Snowden’s actions is that “U.S. technology giants including Google, Microsoft and Yahoo,” are taking “extraordinary steps to block the collection of data by their government”:

Led by Google and then Yahoo, one company after another announced expensive plans to encrypt its data traffic over tens of thousands of miles of cable. It was a direct — in some cases, explicit — blow to NSA collection of user data in bulk. If the NSA wanted the information, it would have to request it or circumvent the encryption one target at a time.
As these projects are completed, the Internet will become a less friendly place for the NSA to work. The agency can still collect data from virtually anyone, but collecting from everyone will be harder.
The industry’s response, Smith acknowledged, was driven by a business threat. U.S. companies could not afford to be seen as candy stores for U.S. intelligence. But the principle of the thing, Smith said, “is fundamentally about ensuring that customer data is turned over to governments pursuant to valid legal orders and in accordance with constitutional principles.”

It is to a heroic young man such as this that we should all say: “Thank you for your service, Mr. Snowden.”

Have a happy New Year.
ilana