The
pursuit of Constitutionally grounded governance, free markets and individual
liberty
"There is but one straight
course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily." --George Washington
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Computers and Creation
If you are reading
this, then you are using some form of computer: desk top, lap top, Kindle or
other type of tablet. We rely on computers for so many things these
days. They are used for homework, work, email, research, games and many
other functions. All computers are composed of the same basic parts, although
they do vary a great deal in size, shape and function. Those components
are:
Central Processing
Unit (CPU): The CPU is an electronic circuit that executes the programs
used on the computer.
- Motherboard: The motherboard is a board where microprocessors are attached. It has slots for a number of microchips such as memory chips. It also acts as an interface between the CPU, and other components of the computer.
- Hard Disk: The hard disk is an electromagnetic disk that stores all of the programs that run the computer and that you install and use. It is also the place where all of your documents and work are saved.
- Monitor: The monitor displays the programs being run on the computer.
- Keyboard: This is an input device that allows you to enter information and data into the computer.
- Mouse: The mouse is a pointing device that helps you navigate through your programs.
When you look at your computer, do you think it was the
product of someone’s intelligent designing or was it the product of millions of
years of random combinations of parts and pieces?
It’s obvious that the computer was designed and
built by a source of intelligence. It demonstrates purpose, design and function, all of which are the
product of a creator. The human body
is far more complex than your computer,
yet evolutionists want you to believe that your body is the culmination of
millions of years of random chance processes without any source of design or
intelligence. Think about it, there is no
doubt that the CPU of your computer was designed, yet evolutionists believe
your brain, which is far more complex than any CPU, just happened to evolve
without any purpose or guidance.
The wiring in your computer was obviously designed and built, but
the detailed network of nerves that carry electrical and chemical signals
throughout your body just happened to evolve just in time to work with your
brain that also just happened to evolve.
~~~~~
Suicide: The Biggest Killer in the U.S. Military by Gary North
In 2012, there were
349 military suicides. There were 311 combat-related deaths. Then there was
this: “More than half of troops who
killed themselves had never deployed from the U.S., and 85 percent never saw
combat.” What is going on here?
First,
most suicides were in the Army and Marines.
Second,
there was a higher percentage in newly formed units.
The military says
it is working to reduce this figure, but the problem has persisted for years. Data collected from 2010 showed that half
of all service members who committed suicide were struggling with a failed
personal relationship (intimate or other), and 44 percent had looming legal or
administrative problems such as disciplinary punishments, or had recently been
denied promotion. As for troops who have been traumatized by service, new
therapies are in the offing. Preliminary results from a multiyear University of
Utah study involving service members who have attempted suicide or talked of it
indicate the Pentagon should move away
from its emphasis on long-term hospitalization and outpatient treatments. According to David M. Rudd, the project director, very
brief cognitive-therapy treatments — as little as 12 hours total — reduced
suicide attempts “by almost 70 percent relative to treatment as usual.”
~~~~~~
Obama the new FDR
FDR’s 1944 State of the Union address where the four-time president argued “that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence.” He insisted that that “these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all regardless of station, race or creed.”
FDR’s 1944 State of the Union address where the four-time president argued “that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence.” He insisted that that “these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all regardless of station, race or creed.”
Who would determine
what this “new basis of security and prosperity” consisted of? How would the
implementation take place?
Here are FDR’s
proposals:
- The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation.
- The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation.
- The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living.
- The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad.
- The right of every family to a decent home.
- The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health.
- The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident and unemployment.
- The right to a good education.
“All of these
rights,” Roosevelt said, “spell security.”
Do all of these sound familiar?
Who are you hearing them from?
Read on:
These proposals are the bedrock of socialist and Marxist
political theory. FDR was all about socialism. His Social Security program was modeled
after Germany’s socialistic social security system that went back to proposals made by German Chancellor Otto
von Bismarck (1815–1898). It was his policies
that gradually made the German people “value security over political freedom
and caused them to see in the State, however conservative, a benefactor and a
protector.” Between 1883 and 1889
Bismarck put through a program for social security far beyond anything known in
other countries at the time. It included compulsory insurance for workers
against old age, sickness, accident and incapacity, and though it was organized
by the State it was financed by employers and employees. Yes, this sounds
familiar? This is American-style Social Security!
~~~~~~
A father of a Sandy
Hook Elementary School student testified on January 28, 2013 in a Working Group
Public Hearing at the Connecticut State Capitol on gun violence prevention.
While Bill Stevens’ fifth grade daughter was not harmed in the incident, she was
one of the children that were in “lock down” during the shooting and following
it. However, Mr. Stevens said that his daughter’s friend’s little sister was
one of the children that was murdered because, “when 911 and ‘lock down’ were
not enough to protect her from an evil person, not protect her from an ‘assault
rifle’ or some type of an inanimate object, but from an evil person.”
In speaking to
those listening, Stevens said that the security at the school was “quite
different from the elaborate security you all enjoy here at the Capitol.”
He then added
sarcasm to make the point, “It was fun getting frisked on the way in.” He then
stated that he was not there to quote statistics, the number of lives saved
with a gun or even the economic impact. He also said he wasn’t there to discuss
“asinine legislation” gun control laws that were being talked about. So what
was he there to do? He read from the Connecticut State Constitution.
Specifically, he cited
SEC. 15.
"Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the
state." As he cited the
Constitution, applause erupted from those listening.“There’s no registration,” he said.
“There’s no permitting. There’s no background checks. It’s quite clear.”
Stevens said he was “shocked” by some of the testimony he
had heard during the day. He reminded those listening that there is a
Constitution and the Bill of Rights and a process whereby the Constitution can
be amended. He also said the same went for the State Constitution. Stevens
declared, “These rights are inalienable and are endowed by our Creator, not you
politicians, to all citizens regardless of gender, race, or creed.”
He also said there was such a thing as “due process” and
“legislation is not due process.” Stevens said, “You want to take my rights away, let’s go
to court.” He also pointed out that gun ownership is a right and should not
make gun owners suspect simply because of the numbers or kinds of guns they own
or even how much ammunition they have. “My guns are not dangerous,” Stevens said. “They are at
home, locked up, collecting dust and cat hair.”
“But criminals and tyrants are,” he continued, “tyrants
especially, beware, ‘lock down’ is not an option at the Stevens’ residence and
911 will be dialed after the security of my home has been established!” Stevens
asked, “Why is that same security that
my daughter enjoys at home with her dad not available at school in Newtown?
That is what you should be considering, not making her dad a criminal. Charlton
Heston made the phrase, ‘From my cold
dead hands’ famous,” Stevens thundered. “And
I will tell you here today, you will take my ability to protect my Victoria
from my cold dead hands!” Stevens slammed his fist on the desk
and walked out to applause from the
citizens listening. Friends, this is what it’s going to take, men who will
stand up to the bureaucrats and politicians who are eager to take our liberty
for a bit of security and leave us as victims. Major kudos to Mr. Stevens! God
bless you Sir!
~~~~~~
Gallup: 61% of Small Business ‘Worried’ Over Healthcare
Costs -- 30% Not Hiring, Fear Going Out of Business By Patrick Burke
(CNSNews.com) -- Sixty-one percent of U.S. small
business owners said they were “worried about the potential cost of healthcare”
and 56 percent said they were “worried about new
government regulations,” according to the
Wells Fargo/Gallup small business index released on Jan. 31, which also showed
that 30 percent of small business owners are not hiring and fear going out of
business within a year. “At the bottom of the list, but still at a
surprisingly high level, 30% of owners say they are not hiring because they are
worried they may no longer be in business in 12 months,” according to Gallup’s
index summary. “This is up from 24% who had the same worry in January
2012.” Over the last 12 months, there have been more small business owners in
the United States who reported they let workers go more than they hired new
ones.
~~~~~~
Someone's Wrong: CIA and State Dept. Accounts of Benghazi
Contradict Gen. Dempsey’s for Why DOD Sent No Help By Terence P. Jeffrey
(CNSNews.com) - The
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is telling a different story about
Benghazi than the State Department and the Central Intelligence Agency.
If the story Gen.
Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, is telling is correct, then the
story the State Department Accountability Review Board (ARB) and the Central
Intelligence Agency have told is not. If the story the State Department and the
CIA have told is correct, than Gen. Dempsey is telling an inaccurate story to
explain why the Defense Department sent no help to the State Department and CIA
personnel who were attacked by terrorists in Libya on the eleventh anniversary
of 9/11. On CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday, Dempsey said the reason the
Defense Department sent no aid to the Americans under attack by terrorists in
Benghazi on the night of Sept. 11-12, was because the attack did not last seven
hours but was really two 20-minute attacks six hours apart.
However, both a CIA
timeline provided last fall by a senior U.S. intelligence official and the
report published by the State Department ARB, published in December, contradict
Gen. Dempsey’s claim that the Benghazi terrorist attack was two discrete
20-minute battles separated by six hours. Additionally, an account presented by
the Senate Homeland Security Committee in its report on Benghazi also does not
comport with General Dempsey's version of events. After all this
time we still know nothing for sure. We
don't even know who the survivors are and they have NOT been interviewed!!
~~~~~~
Free Markets: Economy or Catallaxy? By Sheldon Richman
That the champions of the free market have always understood it, first and foremost, as the most basic form of social cooperation is evidenced by a dissatisfaction with the term economy itself. In volume 2 of Law, Legislation, and Liberty, F.A. Hayek claimed
That the champions of the free market have always understood it, first and foremost, as the most basic form of social cooperation is evidenced by a dissatisfaction with the term economy itself. In volume 2 of Law, Legislation, and Liberty, F.A. Hayek claimed
that
we cannot properly comprehend the market order unless we free ourselves
of the misleading associations suggested by its usual description as an
"economy". An economy, in the strict sense of the word in which a
household, a farm, or an enterprise can be called economies, consists of a
complex of activities by which a given set of means is allocated in accordance
with a unitary plan among the competing ends according to their relative
importance. [Emphasis added.]
Of course, that's
not what a "national (or world) economy" is. This may seem like
semantic trivia, but an examination of Hayek's point underscores an important
and often overlooked aspect of the market order: its cooperative nature. Unlike a household (or other economy), Hayek
wrote,
the
market order serves no such single order of ends. What is commonly called a
social or national economy is in this sense not a single economy but a network
of many interlaced economies… The belief that the economic activities of the
individual members of society are or ought to be part of one economy in the
strict sense of the term, and that what is commonly described as the economy of
a country or a society ought to be ordered and judged by the same criteria as
an economy proper, is a chief source of error in this field. But, whenever we
speak of the economy of a country, or of the world, we are employing a term
which suggests that these systems ought to be run on socialist lines and
directed according to a single plan so as to serve a unitary system of ends.
What Hayek is
getting at is this: The market order
consists of countless individuals each pursuing his or her own aspirations.
While each person demonstrates his or her (changeable) ranking of ends through
the choices made and actions taken, there is no
social ranking of all the ends valued by all the individuals in the
society. My
desire, say, for a pizza dinner can't be placed on a social value scale in
order to see what it takes precedence over and what takes precedence over it.
That simply makes no sense. Society
is not an organism with a preference scale, and preferences cannot be compared
interpersonally, because for each person preferences are subjective and
ordinal.
We can see why Hayek stressed this point. As he suggested, if people think of the market order as a unified economy, they will be more susceptible to central planning, that is, a rational scheme for allocating scarce resources among competing ends. But if market advocates emphasize that there is no single economy — but many, with a diversity of goals — people may be less prone to the central planner's mindset. "The cosmos of the market," Hayek wrote, "neither is nor could be governed by such a single scale of ends; it serves the multiplicity of separate and incommensurable ends of all its separate members."
If the market order is widely understood as consisting of many individuals pursuing through exchange a multiplicity of separate and incommensurable ends, its intrinsically cooperative nature would be harder to ignore and social engineering would be less attractive. After all, if individuals living in society wish to achieve their ends and if force is barred — that is, if these individuals are respected as ends in themselves and not merely means to others' ends — then cooperation is the order of the day. Hence, the value of the division of labor, specialization, and free exchange, which together raise living standards and make possible the lofty pursuits that would not be possible in the abject poverty of isolated existence.
What goes on in the market order (to the extent it is free) is not the allocation of scarce resources aimed at maximizing social utility, but rather an unending series of exchanges. It is cooperation writ large. Because of Hayek's concern to avoid misunderstanding, he suggested that the word economy be restricted to the earlier sense noted above and that another word be used "to describe the system of numerous interrelated economies which constitute the market order." He proposed that since the word catallactics was used as far back as 1855 by Richard Whately and more recently by Ludwig von Mises to mean the science of exchange, "it would seem appropriate to adopt a corresponding term for the market order itself." This makes sense, for as Hayek pointed out, "the term 'catallactics' was derived from the Greek verb katallattein (or katallassein) which meant, significantly, not only 'to exchange' but also 'to admit into the community' and 'to change from enemy into friend'." Thus he proposed the Anglicized catallaxy "to describe the order brought about by the mutual adjustment of many individual economies in a market."
This is especially appropriate because Mises contended that it was the prospect of gains from trade that made human beings social beings. Mises wrote in Human Action,
We can see why Hayek stressed this point. As he suggested, if people think of the market order as a unified economy, they will be more susceptible to central planning, that is, a rational scheme for allocating scarce resources among competing ends. But if market advocates emphasize that there is no single economy — but many, with a diversity of goals — people may be less prone to the central planner's mindset. "The cosmos of the market," Hayek wrote, "neither is nor could be governed by such a single scale of ends; it serves the multiplicity of separate and incommensurable ends of all its separate members."
If the market order is widely understood as consisting of many individuals pursuing through exchange a multiplicity of separate and incommensurable ends, its intrinsically cooperative nature would be harder to ignore and social engineering would be less attractive. After all, if individuals living in society wish to achieve their ends and if force is barred — that is, if these individuals are respected as ends in themselves and not merely means to others' ends — then cooperation is the order of the day. Hence, the value of the division of labor, specialization, and free exchange, which together raise living standards and make possible the lofty pursuits that would not be possible in the abject poverty of isolated existence.
What goes on in the market order (to the extent it is free) is not the allocation of scarce resources aimed at maximizing social utility, but rather an unending series of exchanges. It is cooperation writ large. Because of Hayek's concern to avoid misunderstanding, he suggested that the word economy be restricted to the earlier sense noted above and that another word be used "to describe the system of numerous interrelated economies which constitute the market order." He proposed that since the word catallactics was used as far back as 1855 by Richard Whately and more recently by Ludwig von Mises to mean the science of exchange, "it would seem appropriate to adopt a corresponding term for the market order itself." This makes sense, for as Hayek pointed out, "the term 'catallactics' was derived from the Greek verb katallattein (or katallassein) which meant, significantly, not only 'to exchange' but also 'to admit into the community' and 'to change from enemy into friend'." Thus he proposed the Anglicized catallaxy "to describe the order brought about by the mutual adjustment of many individual economies in a market."
This is especially appropriate because Mises contended that it was the prospect of gains from trade that made human beings social beings. Mises wrote in Human Action,
The
fundamental facts that brought about cooperation, society, and civilization and transformed the animal man into a human
being are the facts that work performed under the division of labor is more
productive than isolated work and that man's reason is capable of recognizing
this truth. But for these facts men
would have forever remained deadly foes of one another, irreconcilable
rivals in their endeavors to secure a portion of the scarce supply of means of
sustenance provided by nature. Each man would have been forced to view all
other men as his enemies; his craving for the satisfaction of his own appetites
would have brought him into an implacable conflict with all his neighbors. No
sympathy could possibly develop under such a state of affairs.
Mises and Hayek were not alone in seeking to revive terms related to catallactics. James M. Buchanan, a founder of the Public Choice school of political economy, was also attracted to that term over economics because of its emphasis on exchange. He also liked symbiotics: "The connotation of the term is that the association is mutually beneficial to all parties. This conveys, more or less precisely, the idea that should be central to our definition [of the discipline]. It draws attention to a unique sort of relationship, that which involves the cooperative association of individuals, one with another, even when individual interests are different." Also, "I want them [economists] to concentrate on exchange rather than choice."
Mises, Hayek, and Buchanan were onto something important. In the popular mind, economics is a cold, detached study of the Economy, almost as though it were a machine that acts on society. In contrast, the catallaxy is where people who disagree about the value of things peacefully exchange goods and services in a never-ending cooperative effort to improve their lives. It is indeed a community where enemies may be changed into friends. The Super Bowl was surely catallaxy - where very many people simply made it happen; not government, no state, just a lot of mutual exchanges where each had their individual needs met.
~~~~~~
Prophets
and Losses by Thomas Sowell
Now that the federal government is playing an
ever larger role in the economy, a look at Washington's track record seems to
be long overdue. The recent release of
the Federal Reserve Board's transcripts of its deliberations back in 2007 shows
that their economic prophecies were way off. How much faith should we put in
their prophecies today -- or the policies based on those prophecies?
Even after the housing market began its
collapse in 2006, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said in 2007, "The impact on the broader economy and
financial markets of the problems in the subprime market seems likely to be
contained."
It turned out that financial disasters in the
housing market were not "contained,"
but spread out to affect the whole American economy and economies overseas.
Then Chairman Bernanke said: "It is an interesting question why what looks
like $100 billion or so of credit losses in the subprime market has been
reflected in multiple trillions of dollars of losses in paper wealth." What
is an even more interesting question is why we should put such faith and such
power in the hands of a man and an institution that have been so wrong before.
This
is not just a question of a bad guess by Ben Bernanke. The previous chairman of
the Federal Reserve System, Alan Greenspan, likewise misjudged the consequences
of the housing boom and bust. Nor was the Federal Reserve's staff any more
accurate in its prophecies. According to the New York Times,
"The Fed's own staff still forecast that the economy would avoid a
recession."
Today, the economy has not yet fully
recovered from the recession that the Federal Reserve System's staff and
chairmen thought we would avoid.
We all make mistakes. But we don't all have the enormous and
growing power of the Federal Reserve System -- or the seemingly boundless
confidence that Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke still shows as he intervenes in the
economy on a massive scale. Not only does the
Federal Reserve System control the money supply and regulate banks, the Fed's
willingness to keep buying hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of government
bonds makes it easier for the Obama
administration to keep engaging in massive deficit spending that runs up a
record-breaking national debt. The reason that the Federal Reserve can afford to continue buying huge amounts of
government bonds is that the Fed is authorized to create its own money out of
thin air. They use the fancy term "quantitative easing," instead
of saying in plain English that they are essentially just printing more money.
Being wrong is nothing new for the Federal Reserve System. Since this year is
the one hundredth anniversary of the Fed's founding, it may be worth looking
back at its history. My Note: We must demand an audit of the Federal Reserve!
~~~~~~
"Our country
is in danger, but not to be despaired of. Our enemies are numerous and
powerful; but we have many friends, determining to be free, and heaven and
earth will aid the resolution. On you depend the fortunes of America. You are
to decide the important question, on which rest the happiness and liberty of
millions yet unborn. Act worthy of yourselves."
--Joseph
Warren, Boston Massacre Oration, 1775
~~~~~~
No comments:
Post a Comment