I have always taken it as a good thing that libertarians are detested by both the left and the right. To me it is proof positive that we libertarians are in the right. After all, both the left and the right are fundamentally the same – authoritarian statists who wish to use the force of government to make society in their own images and to compel others to live in ways that they approve of. And let’s be honest, both the left and the right do truly hate us and whatever we may ostensibly have in common with either – say free markets with the right and human rights with the left (of course neither really supports either except in qualified and conditional ways) – what they find detestable about us involves fundamental differences which can never be overcome as long as they remain “left” and “right,” as long as they remain wedded to that dialectic.

I’ll be honest, at this point in my life I find political philosophy to be tiresome or maybe I have just become tired and lazy. Beyond considering the merits of minarchism versus anarchism I don’t like to go much into any of it anymore. Debates about the implications of the privatization of this particular thing versus government control of that seem to me pointless. From my perspective, if you believe you own your own life, if you believe in liberty, there is nothing to debate. You are never going to convince anyone who doesn’t believe in or understand liberty in a meaningful way to come over to your side. At best, the arguments will all be utilitarian in nature and both sides are going to make counter arguments which are often essentially meaningless – what if this scenario occurred or what would happen in that particular circumstance.

Don’t get me wrong, I very much enjoy watching YouTubes of my libertarian heroes – most associated with Lew’s site and Mises and way too many to mention. And, of course, the great Dr. Paul – but when I see a libertarian debate a statist of whatever stripe the futility of it is tiring. It is as though they are talking different languages. It is particularly trying when I see what we often refer to as a “beltway libertarian” (think Cato, Reason) debating a main stream “progressive” or a main stream “conservative.” The feeling I get is that they are pretending at disagreeing, both of them really committed to never changing anything fundamentally.

The bottom line is that I have been troubled by the inability of libertarians in general to make any substantial inroads into the minds and hearts and thinking of most Americans, which is fairly ironic when you consider that the values on which this country was founded and the values continually espoused when speaking reverently about this country are distinctly libertarian values. Funny how they sound so foreign and unfathomable (and dangerous), except in the abstract, to so many devoted Americans. It’s fine to talk about dedication to liberty, but it’s something else altogether to actually consider living by the principles of liberty. It strikes me that whenever libertarians and those who are suspicious of libertarians talk they invariably talk past each other. It strikes me that our approach as libertarians has been off the mark. We are never going to win by talking principles and philosophy. The only way we are going to reach those who can not hear us now is to show them what they are missing and what they are losing by being afraid to seriously consider liberty and the kind of world they could inhabit by embracing the principles of liberty.

Also invariably critics on the left accuse libertarians of being “selfish” and “greedy” and being for rich people and against ordinary people. This charge is so far off the mark and beside the point it is almost impossible to respond to. It’s like accusing a computer of being short. It has nothing to do with what a computer is. But we get stuck in those kinds of arguments. For me, the best or at least most effective argument for libertarianism is that it is the one approach to governance that has the greatest hope of producing a humane society. The problem is to find a way to explain to people why that is so. “Progressives” like to consider themselves humane and singular in their concern for their fellow man. I don’t doubt the good intentions of those who consider themselves progressive (although, given the history of mankind you would have be somewhat dim to believe collectivism of any sort can lead to anything except misery and misery primarily for the most vulnerable and unconnected), but they seem not to be able to see the implications and unintended consequences of their philosophy.

Moreover, they tend to be primarily concerned with how they feel about their supposed altruism rather than the actual consequences of their initiatives. There are multitudes of examples of the way good intentions and supposedly progressive legislation has led to the suffering of those it is intended to help. This current recession/depression is a typical example, due in large part to the “ownership society” initiative which was intended to put anybody who wanted into a home of their own. It sounded good, but where are so many of those people now? How many of those people who could not pay their mortgages with their teaser rates are now on the street and have nothing?

This new healthcare plan will almost certainly lead to the same sort of thing. How many small businesses will go under or not be started at all and how many other businesses will cut back, all of which leading to job losses for those who need jobs the most. Again, the most vulnerable will end up suffering for the good intentions of those who think they know best how to arrange society. And then there is the current hysteria over global warming – sorry, climate change. How many of those who can least afford it will suffer the consequences of programs like cap and trade or carbon taxes? The list is really endless.

For many progressives it all seems to be about how they feel about themselves and the sense of self-righteousness that their “generosity” affords them. Of course, self-righteousness is hardly the domain of the left. Having lived through the reign of terror of the “religious right” and their devotion to their belief that they are God’s true representatives on earth, well, it was scary stuff. The left thinks they are on the side of the angels and the right thinks God is on their side. Libertarians don’t presume that they can divine the intentions of the almighty beyond the fundamental belief that we are all created equal and are endowed by our creator (whatever “creator” means to you) with certain inalienable rights.

The central libertarian principle is the principle of nonaggression. Taken to its logical conclusions it pretty much covers everything that is the cause of so much consternation in the life of our society. You would think that no one could possibly have a problem with this principle, but many people do. In order for the nonaggression principle to mean anything you have to believe you own yourself and, by extension, that you own the fruits of your endeavors. For any statist/collectivist self-ownership is conditional. In other words, you only own yourself to the extent society says you own yourself which is really the same as saying you don’t own yourself at all. You can make the decisions about your life that society/the state says you can make. Ultimately and inescapably, in the statist’s view, society/the state owns everything and anything you own, including yourself – you only own conditionally.

If you follow that logic then society cannot aggress against you since they own you. They cannot aggress against your property, since it is really society’s property. It is amazing to me how many are comfortable with this perspective on things. Without self-ownership the nonaggression principle means nothing. It may be that people don’t generally recognize how they are owned by society/the state and unless they are personally and painfully inconvenienced by their lifetime indenturement or their serfdom. Until it is your property being appropriated by the state by eminent domain and until it is you who is prevented from finding relief from your illness by laws dictating what substances you may or may not ingest into your own body you can continue to pretend to yourself that you are sovereign over your own existence. You can argue until you are blue in the face that conscription and income tax are both forms of slavery and are unjust in their conception, but until people feel it in their gut, they won’t get it. It’s just the price we pay for being “free.”

If you ask virtually any American if they are free the vast majority will tell you yes, this in spite of the multitude of ways we are not free. Most Germans thought they were free under Hitler. You are free only to the extent the government and society does not want anything from you beyond what you are already willing and ready to give and if you were to decide you were not willing and ready to give those things you already do, you would quickly see how free you are not. My argument and the argument of most libertarians is that personal, individual liberty over all aspects of our lives is the only way to achieve all the legitimate, defensible desires of both the right and the left. It is the rational hope for ever having a humane society with liberty and justice for all and the only way for both the right and the left to ever get the things they claim matter to them is to risk embracing liberty in all aspects of life.

This is what we are not communicating to those who oppose us. What they don’t see is that we want all of the things that they legitimately want, but we actually have a way to achieve it. If you want social justice, it is only liberty that can give it to you. If you want prosperity and opportunity and sustainability, if you want equality (in a legitimate sense), if you want peace and commerce and goodwill between men, liberty is the best hope for achieving those things. Libertarians are also often accused of being utopian and that for real liberty to work we must all be men of goodwill and compassion. This is exactly wrong. It is those who think they can fashion society to fit some ideal they imagine who are utopian. Libertarianism is the only political philosophy which actually takes into account the fallibility and corruptibility of man by recognizing that the last thing we should do is give men power over the lives of other men. If man cannot be trusted to govern their own lives as the left and right believe, then how can they possibly be entrusted with the power to govern the lives of others? They like to believe that the best and the brightest will gravitate toward positions of authority over others. Talk about utopian. The message we need to get across that we have not is that it is liberty with all its implications – for each of us individually, for commerce and enterprise and for everything else – that is the best hope for the kinds of society both the left and right dream of. A society where all men can live in peace and prosper and pursue happiness and find social justice and equal opportunity and learn to love his fellow man. There is a reason why that ubiquitous Ron Paul Revolution sign had the word love highlighted in it. If you really love your fellow man set him free to chart his own course and to follow his own dreams instead of some dream the collective has dreamed for him. Set people free to be everything they can be and the human race can achieve things we can now only dream of.

Source: LewRockwell

Other stories at We Are Change Colorado Springs

Tea Party Purge — A Cause Without a Rebel

Libertarian Was Forced To Take A Thorazine Injection (Antipsychotic Drug) Because He tried To Inform People Of Their RIGHTS!

Obama Website Calls Opponents “Right-Wing Domestic Terrorists”

Is the Fed manipulating the stock market?  TrimTabs CEO Charles Biderman seems to think so, and he makes a strong case for his theory in an article atzerohedge.com.

Biderman focuses his attention on the mystery surrounding the stock market’s 9-month rally and asks, “Where is the money coming from?”  After all, the market cap has increased by more than $6 trillion since March 9. That amount of money should be fairly easy to trace; right?

Wrong.

Biderman: “The most positive economic development in 2009 was the stock market rally. (But) We cannot identify the source of the new money that pushed stock prices up so far so fast.  For the most part, the money did not from the traditional players that provided money in the past.”

Huh?  So, this vast infusion of liquidity–which helped the banks to avoid painful deleveraging–did not come from the usual suspects?

That’s right. According to Biderman, the money did not come from (a) companies (”which were a huge net seller”) (b) retail investor funds,  (c) retail investors, (d) foreign investors, or (e) pension funds.

What about the hedge funds?

Biderman:  “We have no way to track in real time what hedge funds do, and they may well have shifted some assets into U.S. equities.  But we doubt their buying power was enormous because they posted an outflow of $12 billion from April through November.”

Okay; so we’re back to Square One. Where did the money come from?

Biderman again:  “As far as we know, it is not illegal for the Federal Reserve or the U.S. Treasury to buy S&P 500 futures.  Moreover, several officials have suggested the government should support stock prices.  For example, former Fed board member Robert Heller opined in the Wall Street Journal in 1989, “Instead of flooding the entire economy with liquidity, and thereby increasing the danger of inflation, the Fed could support the stock market directly by buying market averages in the futures market, thereby stabilizing the market as a whole.”  In a Financial Times article in 2002, an unidentified Fed official was quoted as acknowledging that policymakers had considered buying U.S. equities directly, not just futures.  The official mentioned that the Fed could “theoretically buy anything to pump money into the system.”

Biderman is referring to the Plunge Protection Team. Here’s a clip from an article I wrote in 2007 which helps to clarify the PPT’s origins:

“The Working Group on Financial Markets, also know as the Plunge Protection Team, was created by Ronald Reagan to prevent a repeat of the Wall Street meltdown of October 1987. Its members include the Secretary of the Treasury, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, the Chairman of the SEC and the Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Recently, (2007) the team has been put on high alert because of increased market volatility and, what Hank Paulson calls, the systemic risk posed by hedge funds and derivatives….

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard of the UK Telegraph notes,  “Secretary of the Treasury Hank Paulson has called for the PPT to meet with greater frequency and set up a command centre at the US Treasury that will track global markets and serve as an operations base in the next crisis. The top brass will meet every six weeks, combining the heads of Treasury, Federal Reserve, Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and key exchanges.”

This suggests that the PPT could, in fact, be the driving-force behind the ongoing stock market rally.

Biderman: “This type of intervention could explain some of the unusual market action in recent months, with stock prices grinding higher on low volume even as companies sold huge amounts of new shares and retail investors stayed on the sidelines. For example, Tyler Durden of ZeroHedge has pointed out that virtually all of the market’s upside since mid-September has come from after-hours S&P 500 futures activity.”

True. The market has been behaving erratically for some time now. Could it be the “invisible hand” of Fed chair Ben Bernanke nudging equities ever-higher?

Consider the comments of former Clinton advisor George Stephanopoulos who verified the existence of the PPT in an appearance on Good Morning America onSept 17, 2000. He said:

“What I wanted to talk about for a few minutes is the various efforts that are going on in public and behind the scenes by the Fed and other government officials to guard against a free-fall in the markets . . . perhaps the most important the Fed in 1989 created what is called the Plunge Protection Team, which is the Federal Reserve, big major banks, representatives of the New York Stock Exchange and the other exchanges and they have been meeting informally so far, and they have a kind of an informal agreement among major banks to come in and start to buy stock if there appears to be a problem. They have in the past acted more formally . . . I don’t know if you remember but in 1998, there was a crisis called the Long term Capital Crisis. It was a major currency trader and there was a global currency crisis. And they, with the guidance of the Fed, all of the banks got together when it started to collapse and propped up the currency markets. And, they have plans in place to consider that if the markets start to fall.”

If there was ever a time that warranted government intervention, it was right after Lehman Bros blew up and global markets went into freefall.  The whole system was teetering and about to collapse. It’s likely that the Fed recognized the danger and made a last-ditch effort to avoid another Great Depression. That means that Bernanke probably used his surrogates at the banks and brokerages to strategically purchase futures and equities that had the best chance of reversing the downward trend. What else could he do—sit on his hands and wait for Armageddon?

The problem is, no steps have been taken to prevent a similar catastrophe from occurring in the future. The same lethal debt-instruments that triggered the crisis are in play today; over $1 trillion in toxic assets still remain on the banks balance sheets, and nothing has been done to reduce financial sector debt.  In fact, according to the Fed, total debt for the financial sector was $16.5 trillion in the second quarter 2009, the same as it was a year earlier. Nothing has changed.

Financial institutions are re-levering and taking on greater risks knowing that the government will bail them out if they get into trouble.  At the same time, the Fed’s lending programs have kept markets from fully-correcting by keeping asset prices artificially high. This has helped the banks  to conceal their losses and appear healthier than they really are. The question is; how long can the charade go on before something gives?

Policymakers seem to believe that blanket government guarantees and stock market manipulation are enough to forestall another disaster. But critics think that a day of reckoning is fast approaching.

Source: Global Research

Other stories at We Are Change Colorado Springs

The Real Axis of Evil: Washington, the Fed, and Wall Street

How the Federal Reserve rips you off

The Case Against the Fed

Source: BreitBart

Other stories at We Are Change Colorado Springs

BOMBSHELL: Evidence Clearly Indicates Staged Attack on Detroit Flight

TSA agents raid blogger’s home, confiscate laptop, demand sources for secret Christmas security directive

U.S. Intelligence Found Iran Nuke Document Was Forged

Legislation intended to reform Wall Street and protect consumers is currently waddling along in the House of Representatives, moving as best a 1,200-page document can. Bloomberg columnist David Reilly decided to read all of HR 4173 (the “Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act”) and found plenty of “gristle” among its provisions that could make any taxpayer ill.

For instance, the bill authorizes the Federal Reserve to provide up to $4 trillion in emergency funding if the financial sector collapses again. Representing more than twice as much that the federal government spent on the current crisis, the money would not be released unless “there is at least a 99% likelihood that all funds and interest will be paid back.”

Also, the legislation does not address the issue of institutions that have become “too big to fail,” although it does reference the issue of forbidding bonuses for Wall Street leaders.

“Best of all,” writes Reilly, “the bill contains a provision that, in the event of another government request for emergency aid to prop up the financial system, debate in Congress be limited to just 10 hours. Anything that can get Congress to shut up can’t be all bad.”

-Noel Brinkerhoff

Bankers Get $4 Trillion Gift From Barney Frank (by David Reilly, Bloomberg)

Source: Blacklisted News

Other stories at We Are Change Colorado Springs

Why Wait? Put Me in Jail Now

Tea Party Purge — A Cause Without a Rebel

IMF Warns of Revolution if Another Round of Bailouts are Handed Out