MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

The Ascendance of Sociopaths in U.S. Governance

Posted by M. C. on April 29, 2021

Now, I believe, it’s out of control. The U.S. is already in a truly major depression and on the edge of financial chaos and a currency meltdown. The sociopaths in government will react by redoubling the pace toward a police state domestically and starting a major war abroad. To me, this is completely predictable. It’s what sociopaths do.

https://internationalman.com/articles/the-ascendance-of-sociopaths-in-us-governance/

by Doug Casey

An International Man lives and does business wherever he finds conditions most advantageous, regardless of arbitrary borders. He’s diversified globally, with passports from multiple countries, assets in several jurisdictions, and his residence in yet another. He doesn’t depend absolutely on any country and regards all of them as competitors for his capital and expertise.

Living as an international man has always been an interesting possibility. But few Americans opted for it, since the U.S. used to reward those who settled in and put down roots. In fact, it rewarded them better than any other country in the world, so there was no pressing reason to become an international man.

Things change, however, and being rooted like a plant – at least if you have a choice – is a suboptimal strategy if you wish to not only survive, but prosper. Throughout history, almost every place has at some point become dangerous for those who were stuck there. It may be America’s turn.

For those who can take up the life of an international man, it’s no longer just an interesting lifestyle decision. It has become, at a minimum, an asset saver, and it could be a lifesaver. That said, I understand the hesitation you may feel about taking action; pulling up one’s roots (or at least grafting some of them to a new location) can be almost as traumatic to a man as to a vegetable.

As any intelligent observer surveys the world’s economic and political landscape, he has to be disturbed – even dismayed and a bit frightened – by the gravity and number of problems that mark the horizon. We’re confronted by economic depression, looming financial chaos, serious currency inflation, onerous taxation, crippling regulation, a developing police state, and, worst of all, the prospect of a major war. It seems almost unbelievable that all these things could affect the U.S., which historically has been the land of the free.

How did we get here? An argument can be made that things went bad because of miscalculation, accident, inattention, and the like. Those elements have had a role, but it is minor. Potential catastrophe across the board can’t be the result of happenstance. When things go wrong on a grand scale, it’s not just bad luck or inadvertence. It’s because of serious character flaws in one or many – or even all – of the players.

So is there a root cause of all the problems I’ve cited? If we can find it, it may tell us how we personally can best respond to the problems.

In this article, I’m going to argue that the U.S. government, in particular, has been overrun by the wrong kind of person. It’s a trend that’s been in motion for many years but has now reached a point of no return. In other words, a type of moral rot has become so prevalent that it’s institutional in nature. There is not going to be, therefore, any serious change in the direction in which the U.S. is headed until a genuine crisis topples the existing order. Until then, the trend will accelerate.

The reason is that a certain class of people – sociopaths – are now fully in control of major American institutions. Their beliefs and attitudes are insinuated throughout the economic, political, intellectual, and psychological/spiritual fabric of the U.S.

What does this mean to you, as an individual? It depends on your character. Are you the kind of person who supports “my country, right or wrong,” as did most Germans in the 1930s and 1940s? Or the kind who dodges the duty to be a helpmate to murderers? The type of passenger who goes down with the ship? Or the type who puts on his vest and looks for a lifeboat? The type of individual who supports the merchants who offer the fairest deal? Or the type who is gulled by splashy TV commercials?

What the ascendancy of sociopaths means isn’t an academic question. Throughout history, the question has been a matter of life and death. That’s one reason America grew; every American (or any ex-colonial) has forebears who confronted the issue and decided to uproot themselves to go somewhere with better prospects. The losers were those who delayed thinking about the question until the last minute.

I have often described myself, and those I prefer to associate with, as gamma rats. You may recall the ethologist’s characterization of the social interaction of rats as being between a few alpha rats and many beta rats, the alpha rats being dominant and the beta rats submissive. In addition, a small percentage are gamma rats that stake out prime territory and mates, like the alphas, but are not interested in dominating the betas. The people most inclined to leave for the wide world outside and seek fortune elsewhere are typically gamma personalities.

You may be thinking that what happened in places like Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Mao’s China, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, and scores of other countries in recent history could not, for some reason, happen in the U.S. Actually, there’s no reason it won’t at this point. All the institutions that made America exceptional – including a belief in capitalism, individualism, self-reliance, and the restraints of the Constitution – are now only historical artifacts.

On the other hand, the distribution of sociopaths is completely uniform across both space and time. Per capita, there were no more evil people in Stalin’s Russia, Hitler’s Germany, Mao’s China, Amin’s Uganda, Ceausescu’s Romania, or Pol Pot’s Cambodia than there are today in the U.S. All you need is favorable conditions for them to bloom, much as mushrooms do after a rainstorm.

Conditions for them in the U.S. are becoming quite favorable. Have you ever wondered where the 50,000 people employed by the TSA to inspect and degrade you came from? Most of them are middle-aged. Did they have jobs before they started doing something that any normal person would consider demeaning? Most did, but they were attracted to – not repelled by – a job where they wear a costume and abuse their fellow citizens all day.

Few of them can imagine that they’re shepherding in a police state as they play their roles in security theater. (A reinforced door on the pilots’ cabin is probably all that’s actually needed, although the most effective solution would be to hold each airline responsible for its own security and for the harm done if it fails to protect passengers and third parties.) But the 50,000 newly employed are exactly the same type of people who joined the Gestapo – eager to help in the project of controlling everyone. Nobody was drafted into the Gestapo.

What’s going on here is an instance of Pareto’s Law. That’s the 80-20 rule that tells us, for example, that 80% of your sales come from 20% of your salesmen or that 20% of the population are responsible for 80% of the crime.

As I see it, 80% of people are basically decent; their basic instincts are to live by the Boy Scout virtues. 20% of people, however, are what you might call potential trouble sources, inclined toward doing the wrong thing when the opportunity presents itself. They might now be shoe clerks, mailmen, or waitresses – they seem perfectly benign in normal times. They play baseball on weekends and pet the family dog. However, given the chance, they will sign up for the Gestapo, the Stasi, the KGB, the TSA, Homeland Security, or whatever. Many seem well intentioned, but are likely to favor force as the solution to any problem.

But it doesn’t end there, because 20% of that 20% are really bad actors. They are drawn to government and other positions where they can work their will on other people and, because they’re enthusiastic about government, they rise to leadership positions. They remake the culture of the organizations they run in their own image. Gradually, non-sociopaths can no longer stand being there. They leave. Soon the whole barrel is full of bad apples. That’s what’s happening today in the U.S.

It’s a pity that Bush, when he was in office, made such a big deal of evil. He discredited the concept. He made Boobus americanus think it only existed in a distant axis, in places like North Korea, Iraq and Iran, which were and still are irrelevant backwaters and arbitrarily chosen enemies. Bush trivialized the concept of evil and made it seem banal because he was such a fool. All the while, real evil, very immediate and powerful, was growing right around him, and he lacked the awareness to see he was fertilizing it by turning the U.S. into a national security state after 9/11.

Now, I believe, it’s out of control. The U.S. is already in a truly major depression and on the edge of financial chaos and a currency meltdown. The sociopaths in government will react by redoubling the pace toward a police state domestically and starting a major war abroad. To me, this is completely predictable. It’s what sociopaths do.

Editor’s Note: A big part of any strategy to reduce your political risk is to place some of your savings outside the immediate reach of the thieving bureaucrats in your home country. Obtaining a foreign bank account is a convenient way to do just that.

That way, your savings cannot be easily confiscated, frozen, or devalued at the drop of a hat or with a couple of taps on the keyboard. In the event capital controls are imposed, a foreign bank account will help ensure that you have access to your money when you need it the most.

In short, your savings in a foreign bank will largely be safe from any madness in your home country.

Despite what you may hear, having a foreign bank account is completely legal and is not about tax evasion or other illegal activities. It’s simply about legally diversifying your political risk by putting your liquid savings in sound, well-capitalized institutions where they’re treated best.

We recently released a comprehensive free guide where we discuss our favorite foreign banks and jurisdictions, including, crucially, those that still accept Americans as clients and allow them to open accounts remotely for small minimums.

New York Times best-selling author Doug Casey and his team describe how you can do it all from home. And there’s still time to get it done without extraordinary cost or effort. Click here to download the PDF now.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Patriotism | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on April 29, 2021

Some years ago I gave my expression to my own feeling—anti-patriotic feeling, it will doubtless be called—in a somewhat startling way. It was at the time of the second Afghan war, when, in pursuance of what were thought to be “our interests,” we were invading Afghanistan. News had come that some of our troops were in danger. At the Athenæum Club a well-known military man—then a captain but now a general—drew my attention to a telegram containing this news, and read it to me in a manner implying the belief that I should share his anxiety. I astounded him by replying—“When men hire themselves out to shoot other men to order, asking nothing about the justice of their cause, I don’t care if they are shot themselves.”

https://mises.org/wire/patriotism

Herbert Spencer

[Originally printed in Facts and Comments (1902)]

Were anyone to call me dishonest or untruthful he would touch me to the quick. Were he to say that I am unpatriotic, he would leave me unmoved. “What, then, have you no love of country?” That is a question not to be answered in a breath.

The early abolition of serfdom in England, the early growth of relatively-free institutions, and the greater recognition of popular claims after the decay of feudalism had divorced the masses from the soil, were traits of English life which may be looked back upon with pride. When it was decided that any slave who set foot in England became free; when the importation of slaves into the Colonies was stopped; when twenty millions were paid for the emancipation of slaves in the West Indies; and when, however unadvisedly, a fleet was maintained to stop the slave trade; our countrymen did things worthy to be admired. And when England gave a home to political refugees and took up the causes of small states struggling for freedom, it again exhibited noble traits which excite affection. But there are traits, unhappily of late more frequently displayed, which do the reverse. Contemplation of the acts by which England has acquired over eighty possessions—settlements, colonies, protectorates, &c.—does not arouse feelings of satisfaction. The transitions from missionaries to resident agents, then to officials having armed forces, then to punishments of those who resist their rule, ending in so-called “pacification”—these processes of annexation, now gradual and now sudden, as that of the new Indian province and that of Barotziland, which was declared a British colony with no more regard for the wills of the inhabiting people than for those of the inhabiting beasts—do not excite sympathy with their perpetrators. Love of country is not fostered in me on remembering that when, after our Prime Minister had declared that we were bound in honour to the Khedive to reconquer the Soudan, we, after the re-conquest, forthwith began to administer it in the name of the Queen and the Khedive—practically annexing it; nor when, after promising through the mouths of two Colonial Ministers not to interfere in the internal affairs of the Transvaal, we proceeded to insist on certain electoral arrangements, and made resistance the excuse for a desolating war.* Nor does the national character shown by a popular ovation to a leader of filibusters, or by the according of a University honour to an arch-conspirator, or by the uproarious applause with which undergraduates greeted one who sneered at the “unctuous rectitude” of those who opposed his plans of aggression, appear to me lovable. If because my love of country does not survive these and many other adverse experiences I am called unpatriotic—well, I am content to be so called.

To me the cry—“Our country, right or wrong!” seems detestable. By association with love of country the sentiment it expresses gains a certain justification. Do but pull off the cloak, however, and the contained sentiment is seen to be of the lowest. Let us observe the alternative cases.

Suppose our country is in the right—suppose it is resisting invasion. Then the idea and feeling embodied in the cry are righteous. It may be effectively contended that self-defence is not only justified but is a duty. Now suppose, contrariwise, that our country is the aggressor—has taken possession of others’ territory, or is forcing by arms certain commodities on a nation which does not want them, or is backing up some of its agents in “punishing” those who have retaliated. Suppose it is doing something which, by the hypothesis, is admitted to be wrong. What is then the implication of the cry? The right is on the side of those who oppose us; the wrong is on our side. How in that case is to be expressed the so-called patriotic wish? Evidently the words must stand—“Down with the right, up with the wrong!” Now in other relations this combination of aims implies the acme of wickedness. In the minds of past men there existed, and there still exists in many minds, a belief in a personalized principle of evil—a Being going up and down in the world everywhere fighting against the good and helping the bad to triumph. Can there be more briefly expressed the aim of that Being than in the words “Up with the wrong and down with the right”? Do the so-called patriots like the endorsement?

Some years ago I gave my expression to my own feeling—anti-patriotic feeling, it will doubtless be called—in a somewhat startling way. It was at the time of the second Afghan war, when, in pursuance of what were thought to be “our interests,” we were invading Afghanistan. News had come that some of our troops were in danger. At the Athenæum Club a well-known military man—then a captain but now a general—drew my attention to a telegram containing this news, and read it to me in a manner implying the belief that I should share his anxiety. I astounded him by replying—“When men hire themselves out to shoot other men to order, asking nothing about the justice of their cause, I don’t care if they are shot themselves.”

I foresee the exclamation which will be called forth. Such a principle, it will be said, would make an army impossible and a government powerless. It would never do to have each soldier use his judgment about the purpose for which a battle is waged. Military organization would be paralyzed and our country would be a prey to the first invader.

Not so fast, is the reply. For one war an army would remain just as available as now—a war of national defence. In such a war every soldier would be conscious of the justice of his cause. He would not be engaged in dealing death among men about whose doings, good or ill, he knew nothing, but among men who were manifest transgressors against himself and his compatriots. Only aggressive war would be negatived, not defensive war.

Of course it may be said, and said truly, that if there is no aggressive war there can be no defensive war. It is clear, however, that one nation may limit itself to defensive war when other nations do not. So that the principle remains operative.

But those whose cry is—“Our country, right or wrong!” and who would add to our eighty-odd possessions others to be similarly obtained, will contemplate with disgust such a restriction upon military action. To them no folly seems greater than that of practising on Monday the principles they profess on Sunday. Author:

Herbert Spencer

Herbert Spencer was one of the leading 19th-century English radical individualists. He began working as a journalist for the laissez-faire magazine The Economist in the 1850s. Much of the rest of his life was spent working on an all-encompassing theory of human development based upon the ideas of individualism, utilitarian moral theory, social and biological evolution, limited government, and laissez-faire economics.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Libertarian Party Platform

Posted by M. C. on April 28, 2021

PREAMBLE

As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty: a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and are not forced to sacrifice their values for the benefit of others.

We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.

Consequently, we defend each person’s right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.

In the following pages we set forth our basic principles and enumerate various policy stands derived from those principles.

These specific policies are not our goal, however. Our goal is nothing more nor less than a world set free in our lifetime, and it is to this end that we take these stands.

STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES

We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.

We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.

Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.

We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual: namely, (1) the right to life — accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others; (2) the right to liberty of speech and action — accordingly we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form; and (3) the right to property — accordingly we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain, and support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation.

Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights, we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals. People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others. They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders; and the resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights, is the free market.

Note: The Statement of Principles was approved at the Convention in Dallas in 1974.

1.0 Personal Liberty

Individuals are inherently free to make choices for themselves and must accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. Our support of an individual’s right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices. No individual, group, or government may rightly initiate force against any other individual, group, or government. Libertarians reject the notion that groups have inherent rights. We support the rights of the smallest minority, the individual.

1.1 Self-Ownership

Individuals own their bodies and have rights over them that other individuals, groups, and governments may not violate. Individuals have the freedom and responsibility to decide what they knowingly and voluntarily consume, and what risks they accept to their own health, finances, safety, or life.

1.2 Expression and Communication

We support full freedom of expression and oppose government censorship, regulation, or control of communications media and technology. We favor the freedom to engage in or abstain from any religious activities that do not violate the rights of others. We oppose government actions that either aid or attack any religion.

1.3 Privacy

Libertarians advocate individual privacy and government transparency. We are committed to ending government’s practice of spying on everyone. We support the rights recognized by the Fourth Amendment to be secure in our persons, homes, property, and communications. Protection from unreasonable search and seizure should include records held by third parties, such as email, medical, and library records.

1.4 Personal Relationships

Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government’s treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration, or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, promote, license, or restrict personal relationships, regardless of the number of participants. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. Until such time as the government stops its illegitimate practice of marriage licensing, such licenses must be granted to all consenting adults who apply.

1.5 Abortion

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

1.6 Parental Rights

Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs, provided that the rights of children to be free from abuse and neglect are also protected.

1.7 Crime and Justice

Government force must be limited to the protection of the rights of individuals to life, liberty, and property, and governments must never be permitted to violate these rights. Laws should be limited in their application to violations of the rights of others through force or fraud, or to deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm. Therefore, we favor the repeal of all laws creating “crimes” without victims, such as gambling, the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes, and consensual transactions involving sexual services. We support restitution to the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the criminal or the negligent wrongdoer. The constitutional rights of the criminally accused, including due process, a speedy trial, legal counsel, trial by jury, and the legal presumption of innocence until proven guilty, must be preserved. We assert the common-law right of juries to judge not only the facts but also the justice of the law. We oppose the prosecutorial practice of “over-charging” in criminal prosecutions so as to avoid jury trials by intimidating defendants into accepting plea bargains.

1.8 Death Penalty

We oppose the administration of the death penalty by the state.

1.9 Self-Defense

The only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights — life, liberty, and justly acquired property — against aggression. This right inheres in the individual, who may agree to be aided by any other individual or group. We affirm the individual right recognized by the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms, and oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense. Private property owners should be free to establish their own conditions regarding the presence of personal defense weapons on their own property. We oppose all laws at any level of government restricting, registering, or monitoring the ownership, manufacture, or transfer of firearms or ammunition.

2.0 Economic Liberty

Libertarians want all members of society to have abundant opportunities to achieve economic success. A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.

2.1 Property and Contract

As respect for property rights is fundamental to maintaining a free and prosperous society, it follows that the freedom to contract to obtain, retain, profit from, manage, or dispose of one’s property must also be upheld. Libertarians would free property owners from government restrictions on their rights to control and enjoy their property, as long as their choices do not harm or infringe on the rights of others. Eminent domain, civil asset forfeiture, governmental limits on profits, governmental production mandates, and governmental controls on prices of goods and services (including wages, rents, and interest) are abridgements of such fundamental rights. For voluntary dealings among private entities, parties should be free to choose with whom they trade and set whatever trade terms are mutually agreeable.

2.2 Environment

Competitive free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems. Private landowners and conservation groups have a vested interest in maintaining natural resources. Governments are unaccountable for damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection. Protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual rights and responsibilities regarding resources like land, water, air, and wildlife. Where damages can be proven and quantified in a court of law, restitution to the injured parties must be required.

2.3 Energy and Resources

While energy is needed to fuel a modern society, government should not be subsidizing any particular form of energy. We oppose all government control of energy pricing, allocation, and production.

2.4 Government Finance and Spending

All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution. We oppose any legal requirements forcing employers to serve as tax collectors. We support any initiative to reduce or abolish any tax, and oppose any increase on any tax for any reason. To the extent possible, we advocate that all public services be funded in a voluntary manner.

2.5 Government Debt

Government should not incur debt, which burdens future generations without their consent. We support the passage of a “Balanced Budget Amendment” to the U.S. Constitution, provided that the budget is balanced exclusively by cutting expenditures, and not by raising taxes.

2.6 Government Employees

We favor repealing any requirement that one must join or pay dues to a union as a condition of government employment. We advocate replacing defined-benefit pensions with defined-contribution plans, as are commonly offered in the private sector, so as not to impose debt on future generations without their consent.

2.7 Money and Financial Markets

We favor free-market banking, with unrestricted competition among banks and depository institutions of all types. Markets are not actually free unless fraud is vigorously combated. Those who enjoy the possibility of profits must not impose risks of losses upon others, such as through government guarantees or bailouts. We support ending federal student loan guarantees and special treatment of student loan debt in bankruptcy proceedings. Individuals engaged in voluntary exchange should be free to use as money any mutually agreeable commodity or item. We support a halt to inflationary monetary policies and unconstitutional legal tender laws.

2.8 Marketplace Freedom

Libertarians support free markets. We defend the right of individuals to form corporations, cooperatives, and other types of entities based on voluntary association. We oppose all forms of government subsidies and bailouts to business, labor, or any other special interest. Government should not compete with private enterprise.

2.9 Licensing

Libertarians support the right of every person to earn an honest and peaceful living through the free and voluntary exchange of goods and services. Accordingly, we oppose occupational and other licensing laws that infringe on this right or treat it as a state-granted privilege. We encourage certifications by voluntary associations of professionals.

2.10 Sex Work

The Libertarian Party supports the decriminalization of prostitution. We assert the right of consenting adults to provide sexual services to clients for compensation, and the right of clients to purchase sexual services from consenting sex workers.

2.11 Labor Markets

Employment and compensation agreements between private employers and employees are outside the scope of government, and these contracts should not be encumbered by government-mandated benefits or social engineering. We support the right of private employers and employees to choose whether or not to bargain with each other through a labor union. Bargaining should be free of government interference, such as compulsory arbitration or imposing an obligation to bargain.

2.12 Education

Education is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality, accountability, and efficiency with more diversity of choice. Recognizing that the education of children is a parental responsibility, we would restore authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government. Parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children’s education.

2.13 Health Care

We favor a free market health care system. We recognize the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want (if any), the level of health care they want, the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use, and all other aspects of their medical care, including end-of-life decisions. People should be free to purchase health insurance across state lines.

2.14 Retirement and Income Security

Retirement planning is the responsibility of the individual, not the government. Libertarians would phase out the current government-sponsored Social Security system and transition to a private voluntary system. The proper and most effective source of help for the poor is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals. We believe members of society will become even more charitable and civil society will be strengthened as government reduces its activity in this realm.

3.0 Securing Liberty

The protection of individual rights is the only proper purpose of government. Government is constitutionally limited so as to prevent the infringement of individual rights by the government itself. The principle of non-initiation of force should guide the relationships between governments.

3.1 National Defense

We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world. We oppose any form of compulsory national service.

3.2 Internal Security and Individual Rights

The defense of the country requires that we have adequate intelligence to detect and to counter threats to domestic security. This requirement must not take priority over maintaining the civil liberties of our citizens. The Constitution and Bill of Rights shall not be suspended even during time of war. Intelligence agencies that legitimately seek to preserve the security of the nation must be subject to oversight and transparency. We oppose the government’s use of secret classifications to keep from the public information that it should have, especially that which shows that the government has violated the law. We oppose the use of torture and other cruel and unusual punishments, without exception.

3.3 International Affairs

American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world. Our foreign policy should emphasize defense against attack from abroad and enhance the likelihood of peace by avoiding foreign entanglements. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use of terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by political or revolutionary groups.

3.4 Free Trade and Migration

We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders.

3.5 Rights and Discrimination

Libertarians embrace the concept that all people are born with certain inherent rights. We reject the idea that a natural right can ever impose an obligation upon others to fulfill that “right.” We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant. Government should neither deny nor abridge any individual’s human right based upon sex, wealth, ethnicity, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference, or sexual orientation. Members of private organizations retain their rights to set whatever standards of association they deem appropriate, and individuals are free to respond with ostracism, boycotts, and other free market solutions.

3.6 Representative Government

We support election systems that are more representative of the electorate at the federal, state, and local levels. As private voluntary groups, political parties should be free to establish their own rules for nomination procedures, primaries and conventions. We call for an end to any tax-financed subsidies to candidates or parties and the repeal of all laws that restrict voluntary financing of election campaigns. We oppose laws that effectively exclude alternative candidates and parties, deny ballot access, gerrymander districts, or deny the voters their right to consider all legitimate alternatives. We advocate initiative, referendum, recall, and repeal when used as popular checks on government.

3.7 Self-Determination

Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of individual liberty, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to agree to such new governance as to them shall seem most likely to protect their liberty.

4.0 Omissions

Our silence about any other particular government law, regulation, ordinance, directive, edict, control, regulatory agency, activity, or machination should not be construed to imply approval.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

Watch “Fauci Flip-Flops Again! ‘Ditch The Outdoor Masks'” on YouTube

Posted by M. C. on April 28, 2021

After warning repeatedly of new waves and dark days, President Biden’s chief Covid advisor Dr. Fauci has again flip-flopped. No longer is it “science” to wear masks outside, he says, after urging outdoor mask-wearing just months ago. Why Fauci’s change of heart?

https://youtu.be/UaHCk064wGs

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

The Terrorist Haven Fallacy on Afghanistan – The Future of Freedom Foundation

Posted by M. C. on April 28, 2021

This is what interventionists just don’t get. They want the U.S. to continue intervening in Afghanistan and elsewhere (e.g., Iraq and Syria) to stop anti-American terrorism. They don’t understand that it is the interventionism that they are advocating that produces the anti-American terrorism. They don’t understand that that is what makes their “war on terrorism” a perpetual war, one that continues to expand the power of the national-security establishment and to enrich the pockets of its ever-growing army of contractors and sub-contractors.

https://www.fff.org/2021/04/20/the-terrorist-haven-fallacy-on-afghanistan/

by Jacob G. Hornberger

Interventionists are saying that U.S. forces need to stay in Afghanistan because otherwise that country will, once again, become a “haven” for anti-American terrorists.

They still just don’t get it. It never ceases to amaze me how blind and obtuse interventionists can be.

Anti-American terrorism is not like the flu or like Covid-19. It doesn’t just spread around the world like an infection or a virus.

Moreover, the 9/11 attacks didn’t occur because the terrorists hated America for its “freedom and values.” They weren’t motivated by anger and rage over Elvis Presley or any other rock and roller. They weren’t motivated by hatred for Billy Graham or any other Christian evangelist.

The 9/11 attacks and all the other anti-American terrorist attacks were rooted in anger and hatred over U.S. interventionism abroad, specifically in the Middle East. Interventionism is the cause of anti-American terrorism. That’s what interventionists still just don’t get.

There were terrorist attacks on American targets before 9/11. There was the attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, which was no different in principle than the 9/11 attacks eight years later. There was also the attack on the USS Cole, an imperial warship refueling in Yemen’s Aden harbor when it was attacked. There were the attacks on the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

All of these terrorist attacks, including the 9/11 attacks, had one thing in common: They were motivated by anger and hatred for the U.S. government’s interventionist foreign policy. For that matter, so were other instances of anti-American terrorism, such as the Fort Hood killing and the Detroit would-be bomber.

For more than 30 years, the U.S. national-security establishment had relied on Russia and the rest of the Soviet Union, along with Red China, North Korea, North Vietnam, Cuba, and the threat of “godless communism,” to justify its existence. The last thing the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA ever expected was that the Cold War would end and that it would lose its official communist enemies.

Then the Soviet Union suddenly and unexpected declared an end to the Cold War, exited West Germany and Eastern Europe, and dismantled. Suddenly, the justification for having converted the federal government from a limited-government republic to a national-national-security state in 1947 disintegrated.

That’s when U.S. officials decided to go into the Middle East with its interventionist foreign policy. They intervened in the Persian Gulf War, killing countless Iraqis. They intentionally destroyed Iraq’s water and sewage treatment plants with the intent to spread infections and illnesses among the Iraqi populace. They imposed one of the most brutal systems of sanctions in history on the Iraqi people. The sanctions killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children. The U.S. ambassador to the UN, Madeleine Albright, declared that the deaths of half-a-million Iraqi children from the sanctions were “worth it.” U.S. troops were stationed near Islamic holy lands, knowing full well how that would be received my Muslims. There was also the unconditional support given to the Israeli government.

All that is what produced the deep anger and rage against the United States that manifested itself in anti-American terrorist attacks. It was interventionism, not hatred for America’s “freedom and values,” that motivated the 9/11 attacks as well as the anti-American terrorist attacks before and after the 9/11 attacks.

Thus, there is a simple solution for anti-American terrorism: Simply end U.S. foreign interventionism. Then the supposed threat of Afghanistan serving as a “haven” for anti-American terrorism disappears.

This is what interventionists just don’t get. They want the U.S. to continue intervening in Afghanistan and elsewhere (e.g., Iraq and Syria) to stop anti-American terrorism. They don’t understand that it is the interventionism that they are advocating that produces the anti-American terrorism. They don’t understand that that is what makes their “war on terrorism” a perpetual war, one that continues to expand the power of the national-security establishment and to enrich the pockets of its ever-growing army of contractors and sub-contractors.

Ending American interventionism would bring an end to anti-American terrorism, which would bring an end to the perpetual “war on terrorism.” But even that’s not enough because it is clear that for the national-security establishment, its Cold War against Russia and China never ended. To finally, once and for all, end the Cold War, it is necessary to dismantle America’s disastrous experiment as a national-security state and restore a limited-government republic to our land. That’s a key to getting our nation back on the right road — the road to liberty, peace, prosperity, and harmony with the people of the world.

This post was written by: Jacob G. Hornberger

Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. He was born and raised in Laredo, Texas, and received his B.A. in economics from Virginia Military Institute and his law degree from the University of Texas. He was a trial attorney for twelve years in Texas. He also was an adjunct professor at the University of Dallas, where he taught law and economics. In 1987, Mr. Hornberger left the practice of law to become director of programs at the Foundation for Economic Education. He has advanced freedom and free markets on talk-radio stations all across the country as well as on Fox News’ Neil Cavuto and Greta van Susteren shows and he appeared as a regular commentator on Judge Andrew Napolitano’s show Freedom Watch. View these interviews at LewRockwell.com and from Full Context. Send him email.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Present Libertarian Priority – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on April 28, 2021

This ambivalence, and this stupidity, by libertarians, is contributing to the destruction of society. That’s right. Supporting face masks, the Covid-19 vaccine, and any of the other things I mentioned above is contributing to the destruction of society. The present libertarian priority is the condemnation and elimination of these things, not just because they are unnecessary, but because they are destroying society.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2021/04/laurence-m-vance/the-present-libertarian-priority/

By Laurence M. Vance

“The idea behind advocating for libertarianism is to introduce a more civil society, not the destruction of society.” ~ Robert Wenzel

I have previously written about libertarian priorities. There I began:

The libertarian goal is ultimately a free society where the non-aggression principle is the foundational principle and individual liberty, laissez-faire, and property rights reign supreme. Standing in the way of that goal is the state. And if that weren’t already a formidable enough obstacle, the state is also actively seeking to increase and expand its power and its interventions into the economy and society.

Under the guise of the Covid-19 “pandemic,” government at all levels is succeeding to increase and expand its power and its interventions into the economy and society as never before.

Yet, some libertarians not only still don’t get it, they are aiding and abetting the state in its destruction of society as a result of their ambivalence or their stupidity.

Libertarians generally recognize that there are core priorities that take precedence over most other issues. Here are ten of them:

  • The drug war
  • Foreign wars
  • The U.S. empire of troops and bases
  • The warfare state
  • The welfare state
  • The national security state
  • The size and scope of government
  • Government control of education
  • Government wealth confiscation
  • Government income redistribution

Eliminating the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and privatizing local garbage collection take a back seat to these much more damaging things.

Because of the events of the past year, in addition to the above core priorities there is one issue that libertarians must make their priority for its duration: the bogus government Covid-19 “pandemic” and draconian government response to it. The libertarian priority at the present time should be the condemnation and elimination of:

  • Lockdowns
  • Curfews
  • Face masks
  • The Covid-19 vaccine
  • Mandatory Covid-19 vaccinations to attend school, travel, or go to work
  • Social distancing
  • Capacity limits in stores, restaurants, churches, theaters, arenas, and stadiums
  • Quarantines
  • Plastic shields in front of all cash registers
  • Contract tracing
  • CDC recommendations and guidelines relating to Covid-19
  • Covid-19 testing
  • Vaccine passports
  • Travel restrictions
  • The closure of, and restrictions on, “unessential businesses”
  • Government and corporate propaganda in support of these things
  • Censorship of opposition to these things

It doesn’t matter if it is private entities that are promoting and practicing these things. They should still be opposed root and branch. Business that are requiring masks, limiting the number of people in their stores, and making announcements about maintaining social distancing are generally only doing so because they are following government mandates and/or CDC propaganda about “the virus.” They wouldn’t even be thinking about these things were it not for the government’s draconian response to the “pandemic.”

But as I said, some libertarians (generally self-proclaimed left-libertarians) still don’t get it.

One libertarian asks: “What does it mean to be libertarian now? I would say that the purer forms of libertarianism are evolving: from a set of policy stances on political questions to a series of projects for building entire new political worlds.” After praising “the importance of Operation Warp Speed in getting the U.S. out of the pandemic” and dismissing the Great Barrington Declaration as “fatally flawed,” he says that “much of the intellectual effort in libertarian circles is concentrated in two ideas in particular: charter cities and cryptocurrency.” I don’t know what libertarian circles he is running in, but the intellectual effort of its members is being wasted while society is crumbling around us.

Another libertarian, even while criticizing Democrats and liberals for panicking over the lifting of Covid-19 restrictions in Texas, spouts a bunch of Covid-19 nonsense that could have come from the CDC:

Masks have been an important tool in slowing the course of the pandemic. There’s a strong case to be made that the unvaccinated should still wear them when they gather in large numbers in indoor spaces.

Fully vaccinated people are essentially immune from serious disease or death, and according to the latest data, they are very unlikely to carry or transmit COVID-19 at all. The message to the unvaccinated should be: Go get vaccinated. The message to the vaccinated should be: Rejoice! You can go back to normal life.

If we don’t want pandemic restrictions to become the new airport security, there needs to be pushback: Get vaccinated, and then get back to normal.

This ambivalence, and this stupidity, by libertarians, is contributing to the destruction of society. That’s right. Supporting face masks, the Covid-19 vaccine, and any of the other things I mentioned above is contributing to the destruction of society. The present libertarian priority is the condemnation and elimination of these things, not just because they are unnecessary, but because they are destroying society.

The best places to find the valuable information you need about the bogus government Covid-19 “pandemic” and the draconian government response to it are LewRockwell.com, Lifefacts by LifeSiteNews, the daily Tom Woods e-mail, the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER), TargetLiberty, and my Covid-19 insanity page. There are other places, of course, and I apologize in advance for omitting to mention them, but these places will give you more than you can possibly use to combat the lies, nonsense, and propaganda about all things relating to Covid-19—even when uttered by libertarians.

Laurence M. Vance [send him mail] writes from central Florida. He is the author of The War on Drugs Is a War on Freedom; War, Christianity, and the State: Essays on the Follies of Christian Militarism; War, Empire, and the Military: Essays on the Follies of War and U.S. Foreign Policy; King James, His Bible, and Its Translators, and many other books. His newest books are Free Trade or Protectionism? and The Free Society.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

The DC Statehood Power Grab – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on April 28, 2021

Which brings the question: What is D.C.’s grievance that America must somehow rectify by making it a state?

Answer: Democrats want D.C. to have two senators to cement their control of the U.S. Senate, as they pack the Supreme Court by expanding the number of justices from nine to 13.

This is a naked national power grab — pure and simple.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2021/04/patrick-j-buchanan/the-dc-statehood-power-grab/

“How many legs does a dog have if you call his tail a leg?” asked President Abraham Lincoln, who answered his own question:

“Four. Saying that a tail is a leg doesn’t make it a leg.”

And Congress’ saying that D.C. is a state would equally contradict truth and reality, as our nation’s capital lacks all of the attributes of a 51st state of the Union.

Whence came our capital of Washington, D.C.?

The city was carved out of Maryland and Virginia in 1790, which voted to cede 100 square miles on the Potomac for a capital city of the United States to become the domicile of the federal government.

In 1846, Virginia’s share of the land, some 32 square miles, was ceded back. What was left was today’s Washington, D.C., of 68 square miles.

Is that sufficient for a state of the Union? Only if one wishes to change the character and composition of that Union.

Consider. The smallest state for 230 years has been Rhode Island. At 1,214 square miles, it is still 18 times as large as D.C. If D.C. were to become a state, it would be a microstate, smaller than every one of the 24 remaining counties of the state, Maryland, from which it was carved.

The Maryland counties that border D.C., Montgomery and Prince George’s, are eight times the size of Washington, D.C., and each has a million people, dwarfing the 700,000 residents of D.C.

Directly across the Potomac in Virginia is Fairfax County, also eight times as large as D.C., and with hundreds of thousands more people.

Supporters of statehood say D.C. has more people than Wyoming.

True, but Wyoming is also roughly the size of the United Kingdom, and more than 1,000 times the size of Washington, D.C.

Even by the standards of American cities, Washington ranks no higher than 20th in population.

Texas — with Houston, Dallas, San Antonio and Fort Worth — and California — with Los Angeles, San Jose, San Diego and San Francisco — both have four cities larger and more populous than our aspiring city-state of D.C.

By the terms of its admission to the United States as a state, the Republic of Texas was ceded a right to split into as many as five states of the Union, which it was joining. FDR’s future vice president, the Texan John Nance “Cactus Jack” Garner, was all for it.

“An area twice as large and rapidly becoming as populous as New England should have at least ten Senators,” Garner told The New York Times in April 1921, “and the only way we can get them is to make five States, not five small States, mind you, but five great States.”

Statehood for little D.C. could start a trend where mega-cities like Chicago and New York, with five and 10 times the size and population of D.C., secede from their respective states and seek full statehood as well.

What is at the root of this drive to make D.C. a state?

The answer may be found in the political character of our capital city.

Since the 23rd Amendment was ratified, 60 years ago, D.C. residents have voted in 15 presidential elections. In all 15 elections, D.C.’s three electoral votes have gone to the Democratic nominee.

Even in the 49-state Nixon and Reagan landslides of 1972 and 1984, D.C. went four- and five-to-one Democratic. In eight presidential elections since 1990, the GOP nominee has failed to win 10% of the D.C. vote.

Since the mid-1970s, D.C. has had home rule and, in every election since, has chosen a Democratic mayor and a Democratic city council.

How irredeemably Democratic is D.C.?

Voter registration statistics in the city as of last December was 403,000 Democrats and 30,000 Republicans, a ratio of 13-1.

Which brings the question: What is D.C.’s grievance that America must somehow rectify by making it a state?

Answer: Democrats want D.C. to have two senators to cement their control of the U.S. Senate, as they pack the Supreme Court by expanding the number of justices from nine to 13.

This is a naked national power grab — pure and simple.

If the real concern were the inability of the D.C. electorate to vote for members of Congress, that could be remedied — by returning the residential portions of D.C. to Maryland, whence they came, or by allowing D.C. residents to vote in Maryland’s congressional elections.

Making D.C. a state would send two Democrats to the Senate indefinitely. But it would violate the constitution and compact under which the nation was founded. And it would start a stampede for other disfiguring alterations, like packing the Supreme Court by adding four new justices.

Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam and American Samoa could soon follow and enter claims to become states of the American Union.

And a second unraveling of the republic would begin.

Patrick J. Buchanan is co-founder and editor of The American Conservative. He is also the author of Where the Right Went Wrong, and Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War. His latest book is Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever See his website.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

If Isaac Newton can be cancelled, no one is safe – spiked

Posted by M. C. on April 28, 2021

It is important to understand that the planned ‘inclusive curriculum development’ has nothing to do with academic education, and has even less to do with engineering or science. Its sole aim is to distance engineering students from their nation’s past and to make them feel that there is something morally wrong with the intellectual and scientific legacy of their discipline. Its objective is to socialise students to despise their background and induce a sense of guilt.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/04/27/if-isaac-newton-can-be-cancelled-no-one-is-safe/

Frank Furedi

If Isaac Newton can be cancelled, no one is safe

Share Topics PoliticsScience & TechUK

The administrators in charge of higher education in the UK have embraced some of the worst features of the Chinese Cultural Revolution. One of the aims of the Cultural Revolution was to mobilise young people to loathe their ancestors and to purge the present of their influence. It seems that Sheffield University has wholeheartedly embraced this doctrine and is planning to discredit the reputation of one of the world’s greatest scientists, Sir Isaac Newton.

In the case of the Chinese Cultural Revolution, the purging of the past was promoted because it was viewed as essential for the realisation of communism. British university bureaucrats, on the other hand, justify their war against the nation’s historical figures in the name of the sacred principle of diversity.

A leaked copy of the ‘draft inclusive curriculum development’ to ‘decolonise’ the engineering curriculum at Sheffield University warns that Newton may have benefited from ‘colonial-era activity’. Apparently, the engineering faculty at Sheffield will decolonise its curriculum in an effort to tackle ‘long-standing conscious and unconscious biases’ among students, to challenge ‘Eurocentric’ and ‘white saviour’ approaches to science and maths, and to promote ‘inclusive design’. That is another way of saying students should feel guilty and show their loathing for the founders of the science they are studying.

It is important to understand that the planned ‘inclusive curriculum development’ has nothing to do with academic education, and has even less to do with engineering or science. Its sole aim is to distance engineering students from their nation’s past and to make them feel that there is something morally wrong with the intellectual and scientific legacy of their discipline. Its objective is to socialise students to despise their background and induce a sense of guilt.

In effect, the plan to decolonise the engineering curriculum aims to undermine the reputation of one of the most important founders of modern science. The English mathematician, physicist, astronomer and author, Isaac Newton, is not just another scientist. He was and remains widely recognised as one of the greatest mathematicians and scientists of all time. Arguably, he was the most important figure in the scientific revolution.

If they come for Newton, then it is only a matter of time before individuals like Louis Pasteur, Michael Faraday or Albert Einstein will be targeted by the know-nothing, philistine, diversity-inspired cultural revolutionaries. So it is not surprising that Sheffield’s draft curriculum indicates that world-renowned scientists like Paul Dirac, Pierre-Simon Laplace and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz could also ‘be considered as benefiting from colonial-era activity’.

The outlook that inspires the proposed engineering curriculum is best described as a form of woke presentism. Presentism incites people to despise their past. It encourages a sense of moral complacency and self-congratulation. It flatters students who buy into this project. They may not be on the same scientific plane as Newton, but because they have acknowledged their unconscious bias, they are a better person than the leading light of the scientific revolution.

In recent years, historically illiterate diversity entrepreneurs have come for virtually every leading figure of the Western Enlightenment. Edinburgh University has decided to rename its Hume tower because some students claim that the 18th-century philosopher’s views on race cause them distress. The liberal philosopher David Hume, who is now branded a racist, apparently fails to measure up to the present-day standards set by diversity trainers. From this standpoint, John Locke, whose philosophy developed the idea of tolerance, is just another 17th-century racist. Adam Smith, another towering figure of the Scottish Enlightenment, is also a racist, apparently. According to one 21st-century critic of Smith, his sin was to make a distinction between ‘savage’ and ‘civilised’ nations.

One of the main advantages of presentism is that it endows its supporters with a sense of moral superiority – at least over important historical figures. Whenever the past is interpreted through the prism of present concerns, it inevitably fails to match up to the supposedly superior values of the 21st-century diversity industry.

The presentist imperative driving the culture war does not merely distort the past — it also poisons the intellectual and cultural legacy we need in order to imagine a different future. We need the Newtons of our past to inspire us to do better in the present and the future.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »

Thanks to the Fed, the High-Risk, Small-Time Borrower Is Becoming a Thing of the Past | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on April 28, 2021

So how do the Fed’s shenanigans hurt banks? “The thing about quantitative easing, if you take it in a technical way, the Fed is taking duration out of the market. You can think of duration as another way of talking about bond, risk, or the ability to buy an asset that pays you over time. When the Fed’s doing that, they’re making all of these assets more scarce, and they’re forcing the prices up and the yields down. By definition, the available return of what’s left for a bank to buy is less. That’s what it comes down to.” 

https://mises.org/wire/thanks-fed-high-risk-small-time-borrower-becoming-thing-past

Doug French

Banks and accounting trickery go together. Last year, as I remember back to my banking days, financial institutions followed the advice once proffered by one of our board members, “If we’re going to the dump, let’s take a full load.” 

When the pandemic struck, banks dumped plenty in their loan-loss provisions, $60 billion, expecting the worst. The cavalry arrived led by Jerome Powell’s Fed liquidity flood, Steven Mnuchin’s Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans, Congress’s Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, and moratoriums on foreclosures and evictions. Instead of an Austrian business cycle cleansing, the cracks were papered over, including bailing out money market funds, allowing us to watch the pandemic comfortably on TV. 

Here we are a year later and banks are rocking their earnings by adding back the money that had been put away for the predicted rainy covid day. Appearing on Real Vision’s Daily Briefing with Jack Farley, bank analyst extraordinaire and Ludwig von Mises fan Chris Whalen said the future of banks could be dim or worse. Mentioning bank darling JPMorgan, Whalen pointed out, “[Y]ou take the reserve release out, their revenues are down year-over-year. Their earnings would have been down year-over-year, and nobody on Wall Street really gets past the first paragraph in the press release, so they don’t bother with this stuff.”

Finding a friendly, promiscuous banker is impossible these days as regulators fight the last war, meaning “banks are continuing to see their assets run off. In other words, they’re not originating new loans fast enough to keep up with the loans that are either being redeemed or prepaying early. A lot of early prepayments, especially in business loans, that kills banks,” Whalen said. 

While consumer numbers look good, the lurking problem is commercial real estate. While hiding in plain sight the heavy hand of the government is “letting the banks let these borrowers go [in] the hope that they come back.” Hope is not a good strategy, but “the bank doesn’t want the building. The bank doesn’t want the shopping mall. They’re giving these people time. But I think it’s a mistake, because especially in big cities, we’re going to have to restructure this real estate.”

A person might think the more loan-loss reserves, the better. Whalen says no. Auditors and regulators argue about it all the time. Bank auditors are on red alert for stashing cash in the reserve to smooth earnings or sandbag earnings for tax purposes. Regulators want all the reserves a bank can put away. 

“The really big question mark is businesses, urban real estate, multifamily real estate, apartments that haven’t had people paying their rent, all of these are going to be problematic,” Whalen told Farley. “Then down the road, and I mean six months, 12 months down the road, not very far, we got to start thinking about municipal finance, because all the money that Congress put on the table to help New York, help Chicago, that’s going to be gone very quickly.”

The bank analyst said real estate was behind most commercial loans. Regulators, and therefore bankers, love owner-occupied real estate, believing those loans as safe as can be. But in a pandemic, with storefronts boarded up, how safe are they? 

In the banking big picture, the Fed’s monetary manipulations are sending the business toward oblivion. “As the banks have grown, their earnings return on earning assets, which is probably the most important thing you look at with any bank that has been falling. It’s fallen 20 basis points in the last three years. We’re down to about 70 basis points,” Whalen said. “I keep telling people if the Fed doesn’t change their policy, by the end of this year, the banks are going to be in trouble.”

Banks aren’t in the risk business anymore. As Whalen told Real Vision, “banks are running away from consumers, the consumer is toxic. The only time a bank wants to face a consumer is if it’s an affluent consumer, a bigger mortgage, high FICO score, low LTV [loan-to-value], cut a loan, no risk.” Other than credit card lending, there is no margin in the lending business anymore.

Back to the loan impairment issue. What banks don’t know is whether their loan books will perform after the government moratoriums are lifted. Says Whalen, “[B]y the summer, the fall, you’re going to be in a position where the auditor is going to force the banks to really start recognizing whether the assets are permanently impaired. That’s when I think we’re going to have to come to Jesus in terms of credit costs.” So, some of that loan-loss reserve money, which conveniently propped up earnings today, may have to be replenished, or worse, the losses may have to be recognized tomorrow.

So how do the Fed’s shenanigans hurt banks? “The thing about quantitative easing, if you take it in a technical way, the Fed is taking duration out of the market. You can think of duration as another way of talking about bond, risk, or the ability to buy an asset that pays you over time. When the Fed’s doing that, they’re making all of these assets more scarce, and they’re forcing the prices up and the yields down. By definition, the available return of what’s left for a bank to buy is less. That’s what it comes down to.” 

Whalen worries about the Fed and about Janet Yellen at the Treasury, “because these people are playing with a prayer book that’s 30 years old. They don’t really understand how much has changed in this market, and how their manipulation of the market has destroyed price discovery, has destroyed risk metrics. We don’t know what we’ve got here. The only way we’re going to find out is if the Fed ever stops buying, but I don’t think they can. I think the Fed will be buying Treasury bonds forever.”

The Fed is taking the US economy where Europe is, with no freely trading bond market. If Powell is successful, Whalen believes the US will be mired in slow growth and, “[f]rankly, we would have a revolution in this country. You give that a couple of years, and we would be hanging Fed governors from lampposts on Constitution Avenue, which could happen anyway.”

Being Real Vision, Farley had to ask about cryptocurrencies, and Whalen pulled no punches. He believes they are a form of fraud, but “if they want to trade Beanie Babies, great. I think that’s fine.” And he doesn’t believe crypto is decentralized, saying three people in North Korea and China using free electricity are manipulating crypto markets. 

Whalen parts with Austrians in saying money is a function of government entities. “You can’t take politics out of money,” he said. “Anybody who makes that argument to you, you know that they’re a child, and that they don’t get it. Countries with strong currencies have big armies and usually nuclear weapons. That’s the way it works.”

The Fed and Treasury are scary, banks are slowly failing, and crypto is a fraud. Other than that, it’s the end of the world and I feel fine.  Author:

Doug French

Douglas French is former president of the Mises Institute, author of Early Speculative Bubbles & Increases in the Money Supply, and author of Walk Away: The Rise and Fall of the Home-Ownership Myth. He received his master’s degree in economics from UNLV, studying under both Professor Murray Rothbard and Professor Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Johnny Rotten is dead right about wokeness – spiked

Posted by M. C. on April 27, 2021

Lydon blames wokeness on ‘horribly, horribly tempestuous, spoiled children coming out of colleges and universities with shit for brains’.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/04/26/johnny-rotten-is-dead-right-about-wokeness/

Johnny Rotten is dead right about wokeness


Share


Picture by: Getty.

Punk legend Johnny Rotten – real name: John Lydon – has blasted wokeness, saying it is ‘nonsense’ that ‘can only lead to trouble’.

In an interview in The Sunday Times Magazine, the former Sex Pistols frontman said proponents of wokeness ‘aren’t really disenfranchised at all’.

‘They just view themselves as special. It’s selfishness and in that respect it’s divisive and can only lead to trouble. I can’t believe that TV stations give some of these lunatics the space. Where is this “moral majority” nonsense coming from when they’re basically the ones doing all the wrong for being so bloody judgmental and vicious against anybody that doesn’t go with the current popular opinion?’

He also condemned tearing down statues and other woke assaults on our past.

‘I heard some nonsense about somebody not wanting [“Rule, Britannia”] played. But stop it. It’s a song. You can’t go back and rewrite history. If you start eliminating those things, well, you have no future. That’s kind of what I was warning about when I wrote [“God Save the Queen”]. I could see this shit coming.’

Lydon blames wokeness on ‘horribly, horribly tempestuous, spoiled children coming out of colleges and universities with shit for brains’.

He’s right. The proponents of identity politics say they are being inclusive. But it is inherently divisive. It is a movement mostly made up of privileged narcissists who claim the moral high ground, from where they then pitch different groups against each other and demonise anyone who steps out of line.

Who could be surprised that Lydon’s punk instincts would lead him to rebel against wokeness? Just as he revolted against the stifling and stuffy conservative establishment of the 1970s, now he is taking a welcome swipe against today’s elites who pretend to be progressive but are just as dull, conformist and puritanical. The world needs more Johnny Rottens.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »