The Slow Return Back, Part 2

As I slowly return to my posting habit, I want to point out something else that is irritating me. It is very specific and the problem is very obvious, but you shall not dare to talk about this. If you try to discuss this, you hate kids, the elderly, and the sick.

Now what could I be discussing that would garner this kind of personal attack against me? Let me first discuss the economic principle lying behind my contention. Economists have known for centuries that increasing demand raises price caeteris paribus. So naturally, we should expect that by trying to raise demand, that we will raise the price. When we speak in generalities, I assume that everyone would agree with this. Of course, we also have monetary inflation that plays a role in why prices rise.

So now finally to my point. I speak of course about financial aid, student loans, medicare, and medicaid. We wonder why prices rise so high in these areas more than any other, and it is because of these programs. Why is it that we cannot talk about this? What is so horrible about discussing these issues? These are apparently off-topic because the intended benefits are more important than the actual consequences? This seems to be a common theme that runs through American politics. It is disgusting, and it is aborrhent, yet it apparently is the modus operandi of our news media and politicians.

If we want to get out of the black hole we currently have of debt, unemployment, endless wars, and the increasing totalitarian nature of our national government, then we must always call for open dialogue, and we must make certain that we never engage in these emotional appeals that destroy free discussion. Until we demand this, the media will continue to suppress the truth by their logical fallacies, and the elite will retain control of the hearts of Americans (the fact that we are discussing a Romney v. Obama contest tells you how completely the elite dictates acceptable dialogue). Support independent blogs and alternative news sources. These are our way out of the intellectual cell the the elite have tried to lock us away into.

The Slow Return Back, Part 1

Yes, after quite a long hiatus, I feel as though I have too much to say to keep this mouthpiece of mine muted. Much has been going on in the world: a presidential election, reform in Europe, tensions in the Middle East, and the continuing monetary fiasco, among other things.

I have been keeping up with the news, and frankly the things that I have begun to notice are horrifying me. I have many things with which I am taking issue, and I will deal will them in due time. However, I thought that I would touch upon what seems to be at least somewhat related to all of the issues: the triumph of rhetoric over reason.

What I mean by this is quite simple, but in a way, quite sinister. For probably decades if not longer, people have discussed the bias of the media. They have shown evidence of some issues, but they are mostly partisan ones. While this is important and should not be ignored, I feel that there is a much larger problem that is much more sinister. Essentially, the media (and our politicians!) dictates to us the bounds of discussion. Let me list a few examples.

The income tax is probably the most blatant example of the issue. The debate with which we are presented is whether we should raise or lower taxes. This works for both income and capital gains taxes. Funny, why do we never hear the argument raised by those who feel that this country should have no income tax? Frank Chodorov made the point earlier in the century that essentially it was the income tax which allowed the federal government to become the behemoth that it is. Without that, we would have the same government that we had during the Gilded Age. Isn't it interesting that this is just seen as laughably absurd? After all, how would the government function without an income tax, they would say. It it just too extreme for rational discussion. Funny, the federal government functioned quite nicely before the income tax, and that system allowed the United States to rise to prominence. Now it is laughably impossible?

The second issue is war with Iran. This has been a particularly hot issue lately, and it is understandable. Discussion of war and nuclear bombs will easily pique the interest of those worried of the Islamist menace. But how much of a menace is it? Is it too extreme to discuss the possibility of our military actions raising up anti-American sentiment? Is it too extreme to say that our debt is far too large to be going into more wars? Is it too extreme to discuss the practicality of a war for peace that kills 100,000 people and displaces millions (I'm looking at you Iraq)? Why are we not allowed to even discuss these things? Are these not valid points?

One issue particularly close to me concerns the election of Ron Paul. From the start we have all heard that Ron Paul is never going to be elected. After all, he is too old, too extreme, and too crazy. Funny, whenever somebody mentions that he is unelectable, they never discuss why exactly that is. Is it his crazy idea that we should be concerned about our debt? Is it his crazy idea that we should not be so trusting of the rising police state (if he's crazy about this, then so were our forefathers)? Is it crazy that we should understand our enemy before we attack them? Is it crazy to vote against unbalanced budgets? Ultimately, the opposition to Ron Paul relies on flash and not substance. What he says makes sense, but just because he is not great at oration he gets dismissed easily. This is nonsense. Ron Paul deserves a look, especially among conservatives who claim to be concerned about our national debt and unfunded liabilities since he is the only candidate that has a plan that would actually lower that debt.

The most entrenched issue revolves around welfare. We all hear about how welfare spending is out of control or how social security is broke. We hear all kinds of proposals to fix it or given the programs back to the states (even this is deemed as too extreme!). When was the last time that any of us heard about just getting rid of these programs? Oh no! Why, if we did that, we would be branded haters of the old and sick, Social Darwinists, or any other kind of dismissive label that is placed on real fiscal conservatives. Hmm, that's funny, how did the poor, old, and sick survive before welfare spending? Did all of the old people die of starvation before social security? Were people dying because of access to care before medicare? Of course not! But can we ever discuss it rationally? Of course not. We're not allowed to.

If this sounded like a rant, it was intended to be. The state of politics in this nation is despicable. We no longer judge proposals on their ultimate conclusions, but rather on superficialities. This is nonsense. If we are ever going to have significant change in this country, we must demand a real discussion, not the pandering that is doused upon us daily. If you want to escape this cespool or pseudo-intellectual discussion, I would suggest visiting sites that actually offer opposing viewpoints. Recently, I've been visiting antiwar.com, rt.com, al-Jazeera, lewrockwell.com, and others. Do I agree with everything on these sites? Of course not. However, they actually present another viewpoint. Read them with a grain of salt, but read them, and don't just rely in big media. They've lied to us before and will again. Be bold, search for the truth, let propaganda not your source of information be.

What Would Happen Without Welfare?

Begin a thought process with me. Let's just look at medicare and medicaid. In 2010, the US government spent $793 billion on these programs. There is a lot more than medicare and medicaid to welfare, but let's just look at this. Now, imagine that instead of the government taking that money from business and people and giving it away that the money instead was left in the hands of those to whom it belongs. What then?

First and foremost, to be sure, many people would be left without health insurance. Even as the extremist libertarian that I am, I can admit that this is a bad thing. All other things being equal, people having health insurance is much better than them not having health insurance. Fortunately for libertarians, though, all other things are not equal in this case. We have to remember that money. What does this other money do? What is its purpose?

The extra money will either be spent or invested. The spent money increases profit margins and the increased investment provides the capital with which to furnish new jobs. So the people who have lost health insurance can now find new jobs because of that capital now being freed up.

But is this alternate scenario worthwhile? Is it better that the money is providing jobs instead of just directly going to pay for health insurance? From the point of view of the person who was taxed, the situation is much better, because now he is getting more for his money. From the point of view of the person who was getting the health insurance, he is now getting the money for insurance plus some spending money for himself. His situation is improved because of the change.

Yes, it is a simplistic analysis, but what do you think of it? Is this a worthwhile idea?