Why We Should Throw Away Our Dollars

Here are a few very telling articles concerning our (soon to be worthless) currency

Senate must raise debt ceiling above $12T

Dollar hits low for year as gold tops $1,000

China alarmed by US money printing

UN wants new global currency to replace dollar

To tell the truth I'm a little scared at the effects of our currency being destroyed. I talked earlier about how hyperinflation destroyed Zimbabwe here, and its real stuff. Just hope it can wait till I can actually afford some gold...

Michael Moore's New Movie Misses Point (once again)

"Capitalism is evil," says new Michael Moore film - Reuters Link

How many movies is this guy going to make where he totally misses the big picture? In his latest release, documentary star Michael (theres no way I'm paying for his fat ass's health care) Moore tackles the "evil" system of Capitalism in "Capitalism: A Love Story". However, Moore focuses more on Fascism than Capitalism but hey, they're just terms right?

Wrong. With Moore focusing on the recent billion dollar bailouts he exposes not the evils of Capitalism, but the evils of Fascism. Fascism is the unholy alliance of big business with big government, resulting in Wall St. essentially owning Washington. The men with the money controlling the men with the guns. This is not free-market Capitalism, this is a failure of government. Moore should attack the enabler, not the enabled. Peter Schiff has a brilliant anaolgy summing this up:

"If a kindergarten school teacher leaves the classroom and gives the kids pixie sticks and soda pop and when the teacher comes back and sees the classroom wrecked and all the kids have gone wild, who are you going to blame?"

The point is that greed will not simply disappear with more regulation, more control, and more intervention. Combining the greed of money in Wall St. with the greed of power in Washington you do not cancel out greed, but exponentially increase its effects. I wholehearted agree with Moore when he claims AIG, Goldman Sachs, and the rest stole from the taxpayer, but it was only through the force of government we had our money stolen from.

Moore misses the point in this movie as he did in his last movie, SICKO, in that he attacks what he claims are "free-market failures" but what are in reality the effects of bad government policies. It's amazing how people can attack an ideology by simply blaming all the problems of theirs on it. Guess it works when you have a nation of sheep willing to listen to anyone with catchy slogans and entertaining "documentaries".

New Blog Up

Hey all (meaning me)

I have a new blog up documenting my internship experience at the Heritage Foundation at http://campus.albion.edu/mrgentilegoestowashington/ so check it out if you want.

As for my personal thoughts about the internship: First of all I'm extremely happy to get an internship this semester (especially one that pays its interns). I'm also happy to get one at one of the more well known political think-tanks in D.C. for that all important resume booster. Second of all being in Washington at this time will be quite insane with Health Care, Afghanistan, and "Climate Change" all being hotly debated (well I hope Afghanistan becomes more debated actually. How the Left can protest madly when its Bush than shut up fast when its Obama is hypocrisy at its worst, but I digress). Thirdly, I'm hoping this internship will give me some real direction for future career ambitions. I'm very passionate about politics but have no desire to make it a career. I'd much rather do something in property management/development, but I don't know if its more important for me to fight for what I really believe in before I see our country (and world) fall apart. Only time and reflection will help me out.

Anyways, I hope to get back to my early days of blogging where I would post at least once a day. I've been quite lazy but think I'll be able to enter a good routine while on my internship. I've done a bit of writing on a few subjects this summer but they are much too long to post on a blog.

Check out the new blog soon, and I'll be writing soon.

Fractional-Reserve Banking: An Analysis from an Ethical and Economic Standpoint - Part 1: Introduction and History

(This is part 1 of a 8 part series on Fractional-Reserve Banking)

Fractional-Reserve Banking: An Analysis from an Ethnical and Economic Perspective

Our current system of banking, a centralized system of money production and control, is one of mystery and will be discussed for this essay. This system of money creation and its implications will be analyzed for their ethical dexterity and economic effects. The modern system of banking, where a Central Bank controls the entire money supply of a country, must be understood and explored since money is the lifeblood of any economy. However, our monetary system is not well-understood and met with confusion and ignorance rather than curiosity and knowledge. The fractional-reserve system will be the focus of this paper as I examine its history, process, legality, economic and ethical rational and criticisms, and also present a discussion on possible alternatives.

History

The beginnings of fractional-reserve banking go as far back as 8th century China1
(Rothbard 91) but the emergence of standardized practices did not exist till around the seventeenth century. While the practice was not the same everywhere the basic story follows this pattern: Gold and silver coin were the prevailing currency at this time and people would carry their coins around with them and keep their stores somewhere in their home. Goldsmiths would keep their extra gold in vaults at their shops and customers would ask to keep their extra currency in there as well for safe keeping. The Goldsmiths would charge a fine for the service and in return for the deposit of gold would issue deposit receipts to the customers for the amount of gold placed in the vault (typically one note per ounce of gold). As more people began using these “money warehouses” the more people began having deposit receipts. As a result, it was found that by just exchanging deposit receipts for goods and services, instead of the actual gold, transactions could be made easier in the marketplace. The exchange of notes proved much more convenient instead of having to carry around gold, or transfer large amounts of precious metals.

The Goldsmiths realized this trend and decided to take advantage of the situation. Since very few customers actually took their gold out of the vaults and instead used the deposit notes as a medium of exchange, the Goldsmiths were able to issue more notes than actual deposits as loans with interest. Thus the Goldsmiths moved from 100% reserves to fractional-reserves since they could not redeem all the notes from the gold reserves. They justified these actions by calling the extra notes an IOU liability that they would pay back to the depositors’ accounts. However, these money warehouses (becoming the equivalent of modern banks now that they lent out depositors money) still recognized depositors’ right to redeem their gold on demand. It is not hard to see as Murray Rothbard put it, “But the legal claims issued by the bank must then be fraudulent, since the bank could not possibly meet them all” (ibid 99). These practices continued and soon became legalized banking practices and are the base to the modern system that exists here in America and around the world.

Here in America our Central Bank, the Federal Reserve, controls monetary policy and the supply of money in the economy. The Federal Reserve (commonly known as the Fed) conducts monetary policy through tools such as open-market operations and the required reserve ratio. The Federal Reserve controls the operations of commercial banks by changing this reserve ratio, thereby affecting the amount of credit, or new money, that can be created. This process of making new money, of how money is created out of thin air, will be detailed in this next section.
First off, it is important to understand why a Federal Reserve is needed in a fractional-reserve system. Since banks cannot possibly redeem all deposits at the same time (the phenomenon know as a “bank run”) the system is inherently unstable. Recognizing such instability, bankers pushed for, and got, the Federal Government to establish a central bank to act as “lender of last resort”. The purpose of the central bank is one of providing liquidity to banks during times where the banks would have otherwise become insolvent and declared bankruptcy. Having such a power allows banks to continue fractional-reserve practices without the worry of going out of business.

Getting b(l)ogged down in the technology

Well it's official.  I have a blog, a facebook, and a twitter.  I can update them all with a touch from either my new browser Flock, or from Ping.fm.  I must admit, I can get a little overwhelmed at it all but that's how it should be.  Easy but complicated all at the same time.  Hopefully people will start paying more attention to me through the use of these new technologies and I can make my mark.  Tweet, Blog, and Flock on people.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Part 7: Conclusion

(This is the 7th and final part of a 7 part series on my final term paper for Ethnics. Click here to start at part one)

Conclusion

In this paper I have tried to show the history of the Maori people and their relations with the Crown and local government. At first the Maori and early settlers coexisted in relative peace and harmony (outside the few cases of cannibalism). It was not till British Imperialism entered the picture that the Maori found themselves on the defensive. Acting under the guise of a partnership, the British quietly declared their sovereignty over the whole Maori Nation and began to establish their dominance over the native people. Starting with questionable land deals the British soon took their opportunity for major land grab during the Land War with massive land confiscation—much of which we saw was unfairly done—and began to marginalize the Maori into the minority they are today. If it were not for the major activism of the 1960s and 1970s there is much evidence to suggest the Maori people would eventually be phased out to extinction. However, they began to use the club of the political power against those who used it upon them and asserted their rights as established in the Treaty of Waitangi. Government entities such as the Waitangi Tribunal and the Maori Language Commission serve to restore Maori land and language ownership. Such steps are in the right direction for the Maori to reestablish themselves as a culture. The question is which philosophy is the best one for the Maori: To use the existing government and try to slowly gain political power in order to achieve Maori ideals? Or declare independence from the Pakeha majority and become a true Maori Nation through a declaration of individual sovereignty from the rest of New Zealand? Only time and the Maori will decide which path is right for them.

Part 6: Waitangi Tribunal

(This is the 6th part of a 7 part series on my final term paper for Ethnics. Click here to start at part one)

Waitangi Tribunal

The Waitangi Tribunal was commissioned as an independent judicial body set up to review actions of those acting under the authority of the Crown in New Zealand, who may have broken agreements set out in the Treaty of Waitangi. However, the Tribunal was given power only to make recommendations to the government and none to implement their recommendations. The Tribunal’s lack of jurisdiction produced as few as four cases by 1981 and the Maori were unsatisfied with such results. In 1985, Parliament amended the Treaty of Waitangi Act so that the Tribunal would serve as the one body for Maori claim review. Most importantly the act established jurisdiction for the Tribunal for actions taken as far back as 1840. With such power granted, the Tribunal could make significant and historic claims. Claims could be made against “confiscations, expropriations, title grants, and Crown and some private purchases” (Ibid 237). The Tribunal marked the first real recognition of the Treaty of Waitangi since the late 1800s which concluded the Maori had no recognizable system of government to claim sovereignty to: “hence, in legal terms, the Treaty was ‘a simple nullity’” (Alves 58).

Ever since the Treaty of Waitangi was drafted there have been arguments over the difference in translations of the treaty and, subsequently, the meaning of such differences. At the time of the Treaty the Maori had the understanding that the British had the right to make laws and maintain order, but they maintained their sovereignty. In regards to land the English version of Article II guaranteed Maori:

The full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates Forests Fisheries and other properties which they may collectively or individually posses so long as it is their wish and desire to retain the same in their possession; but the Chiefs yield to Her Majesty the exclusive right of Pre-emption over such lands as the proprietors thereof may be disposed to alienate at such prices as may be agreed upon…

The Maori version, stated:

The Queen of England agrees to protect the Chiefs, the sub-tribes and all the people of New Zealand in the unqualified exercise of their chieftainship over the lands, villages and all their treasures. But on the other hand the Chiefs of the Confederation and all the Chiefs will sell land to the Queen at a price agreed to by the person owning it and by the person buying it (the latter being) appointed by the Queen as her purchase agent.

This right of preemption, which was in the English version but not the Maori, gave the Maori only one buyer—the Crown—and also contributed to the Maori being persuaded to sell their land (Bourassa and Strong 232). The large amount of land lost to such misunderstands became major Maori cases in the Tribunal’s hearings.

However, major questions arise with what compensation is acceptable for both the Maori and the Pakeha. There exist two separate, and very different, ideas about this issue. On one hand you have the Maori having suffered the full wrath of European invasion: Losing (either through legal land sales or illegal confiscation) 95% of their original land holdings, experiencing an almost complete disappearance of their native language and parts of their culture, and a limited representation in the current political system. To the Maori they feel every entitlement for restitution of their land and culture, using the government that took everything away to gain everything (and possibly more) back. On the other side you have those (mainly Pakeha) who feel to give back land to the Maori is in itself an unfair distribution of land to those whose only claim to it lies in their ancestral heritage—even though many of the Maori have mixed with the Pakeha complicating the matter further. It is these types of opinions the Waitangi Tribunal must deal with, and try to make amends with.

In the Tribunal’s short history, there have been several important decisions made concerning Maori recognition from the government. In a claim brought by the Maori organization Te Kaiwhakapumau I Te Reo Maori, the group stated that the New Zealand government had failed to protect the Maori language and such a failure went against a promise in the Treaty of Waitangi. The Tribunal (Waitangi Tribunal 1986) declared: “The ‘guarantee’ in the Treaty requires affirmative action to protect and sustain the language, no a passive obligation to tolerate its existence and certainly not the right to deny its use in any place” (qtd. in Spolsky 564). With the Tribunal’s ruling on the Maori language the Maori Language Act 1987 passed. “The purpose of the Act was ‘to declare the Maori language to be an official language of New Zealand’” (Ibid 564). It allowed the language to be spoken in legal proceedings and for an interpreter to always be available. It also set up an official government institution for the promotion of the Maori Language, the Maori Language Commission. Again we see the Maori use the government—this time to help promote the language that was almost wiped out completely due to State policies.

The biggest settlement on land claims was the Waikato Tainui Raupatu (confiscation of land) Act 1995. Under the New Zealand Settlements Act 1863 the government confiscated 1.2 million acres of the Tainui land, and the Tainui finally had an opportunity for restitution with the Waitangi Tribunal. The claims process began in 1987, negotiations started in 1992 with the National government, and finally in 1995 the deed of settlement was signed. The Crown gave out an official apology that included a personal one from the Queen when she visited the Island in 1995. The Crown recognized they unfairly labeled the Tainui as rebels and confiscated their land unfairly and by depriving the tribes of their land have caused them much suffering. Through this settlement, the Maori “sought not just money, but the removal of that stigma” (Bourassa and Strong 249) of being labeled rebels when they were merely protecting their land from the unfair confiscation from the government during the land wars. Tainui’s principle negotiator expressed the Maori sentiment about the settlement:

Our settlement is not about replacing the responsibility of the government, nor is it about short term remedy. The Crown still has a duty to provide for proper standards of health, welfare, housing, employment and all the basic needs that Maori people along with other citizens require. (qtd. in Alves 99)

I believe it is type of thinking that most Maori believe, and it makes sense. They have sworn their sovereignty over to the Crown and expect the same rights and priviledges as every other group under Crown governance. However, they have experienced time and time again, the government taking more from them than giving to them. The Waitangi Tribunal is a start in the people’s process towards a more just system, the question is to what end will this process take them?

The Waitangi Tribunal continues to this day to be the foremost entity working for equity and restitution for the Maori people. The Tribunal hears claims on a daily basis but few ever actually make it to any type of real legal process. It is interesting to note how once even just a little power is given to such a minority group as the Maori they are able to make substantial gains in terms of gaining land or changing existing policies. It strengthens the arguments of those in favor of separate Maori governance in order to achieve Maori ideals; especially those that have been trampled on from the European-run governments in the past.

Part 5: Political Resurgance

(This is the 5th part of a 7 part series on my final term paper for Ethnics. Click here to start at part one)

Political Resurgence

In the early part of the twentieth century, the Maori began to slowly rebuild their numbers and settled into a socio-economically disadvantaged group. A major movement began after World War II towards urban areas from rural to pursue job and educational opportunities (Ausubel 222). Those who lived in cities struggled to adjust to the vastly different life of mortgages and contract agreements. Maori standards of living remained well below national averages with low health and living conditions. Many Maori volunteered to fight in World War II and came back with worldwide recognition of their deeds, providing them with confidence to demand equality with the returning Pakeha servicemen (Alves 38). Here we see the first signs of Maori demanding restitution from the government; in this case the first Labour government provided unemployment and pension benefits standards for everyone. As quoted in an article from the times, “the Maori cannot live without government aid and enterprise” (Hawthron 46). Continual pushes for government action in Maori affairs resulted in such enactments such as the Maori Welfare Act 1962, creating the Maori Council. The Council’s main adjective was to provide an overall Maori opinion and to help with ending discrimination but also looking to help in assimilation (Alves 39).

With the moves away from traditional, rural tribal settings, the Maori experienced a major loss in their language. Moving from a monolingual Maori setting to the monolingual English city settings led to language mixing and gradual dissipation and erosion of the Maori language. Also at this time the Maoris’ land holding had been shrunk to 3.1 million acres, a mere 5% of New Zealand. Efforts had been made to try and begin a process of restitution of land to the Maori, but the efforts were half-hearted and no real justice was served. With Maori culture standing at the brink of extinction, it “made many people, especially the youth, responsive to calls for pan-Maori mobilization” (Sharp 88) and the calls to Activism resonated clearly within the people. Ausubel states, “the determination of the Maori people to preserve their cultural identity was implemented by the perpetuative mechanism of almost complete physical, social, and psychological withdrawal from erosive contact with European culture” (227).

The 1960s and 1970s brought about a global surge in ethnic and social identity recognition and equality. Calls for woman’s and black rights in America could be seen reciprocated in the cultural movements in Australia, Canada, South America, and in New Zealand. Given the new communication mediums of television and radio, people from around the world could see the efforts made by similar groups and find inspiration in them. The Nga Tamatoa, a Maori group, lobbied for Maori language to be taught in schools (Spolsky 560). The Land Rights Movement, led by Maori women, conducted protests and marches for Maori land restitution (Bourassa and Strong 237). These movements intensified in 1975 and the Labour Party moved quickly to address the growing protests by establishing the Waitangi Tribunal—a governing body to address grievances concerning the Treaty of Waitangi.

Part 4: Land Wars and Aftermath

(This is the 4th part of a 7 part series on my final term paper for Ethnics. Click here to start at part one)

Land Wars and Aftermath

The New Zealand land wars took place intermittently between 1860 and 1872, and nearly 18,000 British troops were deployed to the Island to combat the Maori. The British forces found the Maori extremely well organized and difficult to defeat since the tribes relied on guerrilla warfare instead of open battlefields where the British had the advantage. The British, blinded by sheer arrogance of their own superiority, could not believe that the Maori posses engineering and military expertise and thus could not defeat the Maori warriors easily.

During the War, Parliament passed the Suppression of Rebellion Act 1863 which allowed the punishment of rebels and the confiscation of their lands. Under this act nearly 3.5 million acres were taken, even though later many of the Maori were found to have not been in rebellion against the Crown. Some of this land was returned to a few of the Maori tribes after the war, but in the form of Crown title (Bourassa and Strong 234). The Waitangi Tribunal stated long after the fact in 1996 that:

The wars, in our view, were not of Maori making. The Governor was the aggressor, not Maori…In terms of strict law, the initial military action against Maori was an unlawful attack by armed forces of the Government on Maori subjects who were not in rebellion and for which, at the time, the Governor and certain Crown officers were subject to criminal and civil liability. (7)

The Crown also passed the Native Land Acts 1862 and the Native Land Act 1865 mandating that individual Maori men needed to own land in order to be eligible to vote. The Maoris did not posses the same ideas of the individual as the Western British did, and these acts posed problems for the Maori since Maori land was communal and owned by every member of the group. Many refused or were unable to individualize their shared land holdings into a fashion deemed appropriate to the English and were excluded from parliamentary participation (Fleras 555). This effectively excluded a large majority of Maori from any political bearing and contributed to causes of the Land Wars. There were continuing laws enacted to further undermine the Maori property rights. The Public Works Act 1864 allowed the Crown to take up to 5% of the land without compensation for roads and public works projects. The expansion of the road system into Maori land enabled the local governments to impose taxes on the Maori lands that led to further land confiscation.

The Maori Representation Act 1867 created a duel system of representation that gave the Maori some form of representation. The Act divided the land into four districts and allowed Maori men with voting rights to elect one representative from each district to the parliament. This was viewed by the Maori as a “Pakeha commitment to racial harmony through more equitable sharing of political power” (Ibid 556). However, the British desire was not so much to create racial harmony as to assimilate the Maori into acceptable British citizens. By establishing Maori representation the British were able to achieve four goals: pacify a formidable military opponent, quickly assimilate the Maori with low cost, provide safety for settlers while the government acquired land to secure a frontier, and keep the Maori from creating their own power base which could undermine parliament control.

The Crown wished to ease the Maori into their view of a better society—Christian and civilized—which would be achieved by the “Europeanization” of the Maori. As Augie Fleras states, “Maori representation arose as a politically deceptive strategy of indirect control which co-opted the Maori population while simultaneously conveying the illusion of democratic power sharing” (558). Groups like the Young Maori Party, who bought into the British and Western culture superiority over their “out-dated” customs, worked to change their culture. Being mostly European educated, these Maori would join political parties in efforts to enhance Maori life through acceptance of European ways of life. These groups were supported by the Pakeha and local governments but were eventually labeled as “sell-outs” during the 1970s activist movements and phased out.

Since the missionary schools had been weakened by the wars the government passed the Native Schools Act 1867, establishing English as the school language medium (Spolsky 557). These schools were created in order to force English monolingualism onto the Maori-monolingual speakers. The goal being to educate and civilize the Maori so that the British could control them easier and future wars could be averted. The government run schools provided another way for the Crown to assimilate the Maori into the ideal British citizen, making them “brown-skin Pakeha” (Fleras 557). Maori reaction to such policies were mixed. Separatists wished to completely reject such policies, which, they felt, undermined Maori autonomy. On the other side you had those who wanted such policies and felt the need to reject Maori language completely in favor of the dominant, English language and culture. Those in-between who favored both English and Maori language teaching, seeing the benefits of acquiring English but still wanting to maintain Maori culture. These three views remained prevalent in Maori language and political movements and can help us understand the Maori opinions today. The separatists were the ones who insisted on the revitalization of Maori language in the 20th century and played important roles in the language revitalization movements (Spolsky 558).

Part 3: Waitangi Treaty

(This is the 3rd part of a 7 part series on my final term paper for Ethnics. Click here to start at part one)

Treaty of Waitangi

The Treaty of Waitangi continues to this day to be the most important documents in New Zealand law concerning the Maori directly. The Treaty established three main tenets: 1) Land title would only have legitimacy if given through the Crown, 2) the establishment of Preemption by the Crown through an appointed committee, and 3) the Maori received the same rights and protections as citizens of England. Over 500 Maori chiefs signed the document, ceding sovereignty to the British, yet the document has been debated and deliberated over ever since its execution. Arguments over the meanings of particular words and how the document was translated have major impact on current claims against the Crown and will be discussed later in the section about the Waitangi Tribunal. The British were (and still are) suspected that their main intentions for the treaty for the Crown to have control over all the land sales so they could sell it cheaply to themselves than sell it to future settlers at much higher prices (Bourassa and Strong 232). Since they gave the right of Preemption to the British in the treaty, the Maori were given little choice but to basically hand their land over for little to nothing to the British controlled land committees. As David Ausubel states,

In acceding to colonization and British sovereignty, and in placing their trust in treaty guarantees the Maori failed to reckon realistically with the predatory designs of the colonists who were determined by any means, fair or foul, to obtain the most desirable land in New Zealand and to establish the supremacy of their own economic and political system. (219)

The more settlers that began to arrive to the island put more and more pressure on demand for land and the Crown set out to acquire vast amounts of land. From 1844 to 1864, the Crown bought 34.5 million acres of land from the Ngai Tahu at a price less than what 30,000 acres sold for in Canterbury (Bourassa and Strong 233).

At the same time the New Zealand Government began to support the mission schools, implementing policies to control and pacify the Maori. The government aimed to replace the Maori language with English so as to assimilate Maori into what they considered to an acceptable British colony. The Maoris wished to learn English so as to effectively deal with the new settlers and government. Such motivations were seen as Maori willingness to give up on their culture and as threats to the integrity of their social and economic institutions (Ausubel 219). The Pakeha wished to rule the colony completely, “aware that Maori resistance to land sales limited the extension of British sovereignty while preserving Maori autonomy” (Alves 25). The British colonists, refusing to be denied the land that they desired, took up arms against the Maori who they felt blocked their ambitions. The Maori resisted such attacks, considering the white settlers arrogant and greedy, and the events culminated into a series of deadly Land Wars.

Part 2: Early Interactions

(This is the 2 part of a 7 part series on my final term paper for Ethnics. Click here to start at part one)

Early Interactions

At first, contact between the native tribes and Europeans consisted mainly of trade and missionary expeditions. The first European settlers were sealers and whalers who, dispute a few violent incidences, established a working relationship with the natives. Each group saw advantages from working together: The Europeans gained from the superior fishing, timber, and flax New Zealand offered (Bourassa and Strong 230). “The Maori were also intensely eager to acquire all of the benefits of European technology without surrendering their social institutions, core values, or distinctive way of life” (Ausubel 219). The Maori were able to use the new tools and constructed timber mill and new boats so as to travel farther. They also quickly learned the new farming techniques brought by the missionaries and the Potato became a major staple crop. Early on the adaption to a European way of life damaged lifestyles of the Maori people: “Maori became less hardy when they took to European clothing, and the cheap rum of the sealers and whalers took its toll in a race unaccustomed to stimulants” (Alves 12). Also the introduction of new diseases from the Europeans took a devastating toll on the Maori wiping out nearly 200,000 from the mid-1700s to 1854 (Bourassa and Strong 231).

During the early part of the 19th Century, various immigrants, mostly English, from Australia made their way over to New Zealand to invest and land speculation became rampant (Ibid 231). In 1932, James Busby was appointed as official British Resident to ease British fears of violence reported. The British shared concerns of Maori chiefs of a French invasion and moved towards declaring sovereignty by cession from the chiefs in the settled areas (Alves 19). The Crown decided that a new Colony should be established, and in 1839 sent Captain William Hobson as Consul to negotiate with the Maori leaders, appoint a Protector for them, make sure Maori land rights were guaranteed, and make sure the Crown had exclusive rights to land titles. Hobson declared Crown authority over all British settlers and together with Busby called together a meeting of the northern chiefs. Together they drafted the Treaty of Waitangi, which officially established British sovereignty over New Zealand. Such negotiations began the Crown’s control over the Maori, which steadily became more dominant over time.

Maori Relations With the Crown: A Story of Deprivation, Restitution, and a Question of Where to go Next -- Part 1 - Introduction

This is part 1 of a 7 part series from my final term paper in my Ethnics class. Tell me what you think. (plus it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside to do a "series" of posts)

Introduction

The New Zealand Maori have had a long history of oppressive relations between themselves and the Government. Their history contains many similarities to other indigenous peoples such as the American Indians and the Australian Aborigines concerning the relationship between the tribes and the government. In the case of the Maori, the relationship with the Crown completely changed the natural order of the Maori life. The confiscation of land and sovereignty cast the Maori into a state of struggle against the Crown, and the subsequent battles between the tribes and the Crown continue to this day—the weapons of diplomacy and law now replacing the tomahawk and rifle. I will attempt to show in this paper the Maoris’ history of struggle against the Crown and how it has evolved.

In my opinion, it appears the Maori suffer from a type of Stockholm Syndrome in terms of their dealings with the Crown and New Zealand Government. The British and subsequent local governments have both stolen land and killed many of the Maori people. They contributed greatly to the near extinction of the Maori language through government run education and political pressure. The Maori have not taken this abuse lightly and have fought against such oppression, using both violence and diplomacy. However, instead of unchaining themselves from the chains of government control, they have decided to use the State to achieve their goals—the very entity that took from them. The movements for rights in the 1960s and 70s struggled with “the dilemma of whether to align themselves with radical and reformist groups dominated by Pakeha {European New Zealanders} or to stress Maori cultural and political exclusivity” (Sharp 94). By analyzing the history of government interventions with the Maori we can see the injustices done to the Maori and try to understand their positions today and what directions they can take.

Should We Really Be Waging A ‘War’ On Drugs?

(This was my final English Assignment so the grammer's actually good :P)

It seems the Federal Government has declared war on just about everything: The War on Poverty, the War on Terror, the War on Bulging Waistlines (well not really but at our growing rate of obesity it’s coming), and the War on Drugs. I will focus on the Drug ‘War’ in this paper and explore the consequences of this public policy and its whether or not it actually works. I will try to show how making what should be a personal and moral choice into a criminal act does not solve any problems but actually causes more.

Government restrictions on substance usage began with alcohol and we can study the effects of this case to understand our current situations. From 1919 to 1933, the United States prohibited the sale, manufacture, and transportation of alcoholic beverages—the reasons mainly being driven by religious groups who wished to rid society of the ills of alcohol consumption. However, unlike the current laws against drug use, a Constitutional Amendment had to be passed for this law to take effect. This means that first two-thirds of the Congress must approve of the bill and then it sent to the states for voting. From there it requires three-fourths of the states approval for the bill to pass—neither a short nor easy process. Once the amendment passed in 1919, its damaging effects became evident quickly.

Before Prohibition, Mafias limited themselves to gambling and petty thievery. Once the new law took effect, new business opportunities presented themselves to the groups and organized crime became a national problem. Crime lords such as Al Capone controlled entire cities using the vast profits from illegal sales of alcohol to control both political leaders and the police. High rates of violence plagued cities these crime lords ruled and most citizens participated in the illegal practice of drinking at speakeasies. This mirrors exactly the situation we see now in countries such as Mexico and Columbia where the drug cartels control entire regions of the countries. They use the enormous profits from the drug trade to buy large amounts of weapons and also to control the local government agencies. These large profits come directly from the illegality of the drugs.

By making a substance illegal you immediately create a black market for the good. Since participants have to deal outside of the rule of law there exist no regulation in these black markets. Dealers start producing higher potency drugs so that smaller portions can be used since they conceal easier. During Prohibition the popularity of stronger potency drinks increased dramatically. Spirits such as "White Mule Whiskey" and “Moonshine” allowed drinkers to become inebriated much quicker and cheaper than regular alcoholic beverages such as beer or wine. Today, dealers sell these extremely potent forms of drugs since buyers do not have to buy as much and dealers can carry less. Users then risk the hazard of overdose and greater addiction from these higher, more dangerous doses.

Legalizing drugs would produce immediate differences. Instead of back-alley dealers and violent cartels controlling the supply of drugs, private business would begin to enter the industry and provide competition. This competition would drive the prices of drugs down and eliminate the monopoly profits the drug cartels enjoy now and also eliminate most of the violence associated with the drug trade. People would then have a choice to continue buying from the violent, unsafe dealers or from local businesses in actual stores. These legal companies would provide “safer” types of drugs in terms of potency and quality to users as compared to the current forms of drugs available. Since drugs would be legal, people would have the full protection of the law when they dealt with companies and outside agencies could review them to ensure they provide “safer” drugs to users. The current illegality of drugs makes these types of market securities impossible since all drug providers have to work outside legal markets and laws.

However, many will argue such a policy (or more correctly, lack of policy) does not address the issue of actual drug use and government intervention must be used. Using history and empirical evidence, the case for drug laws seems impressively weak when compared to non-government involvement. Take the example of cigarette smoking over the past century. Before any medical studies dealt with the effects of smoking, a majority of American’s smoked. Since then however, studies done revealed the damaging long-term effects of smoking and educated the public. The smoking rate decreased from over 50% to roughly around 25% today. This dramatic decrease happened without the intervention of government, but rather due to the increase in public knowledge and allowing individuals to make personal choices about their living habits.

By not letting an individual choose how they treat their body you eliminate the only truly effective method of changing a person’s habit—their own free choice. Instead of spending money enforcing laws against personal choice, we should use those billions for educational programs that will allow a person to possess full knowledge of their actions and make a personal choice about their habits. People will always resist force aimed against preventing them from making personal choices and we should recognize that the Drug ‘War’ will not change minds but only further keep people from changing their lives for the better. It takes the moral issue of drug use and places on it the excessive burden of illegality.

The country of Portugal provides a perfect case study into the changing views on the ‘War’ on drugs since they decided in 2001 to decriminalize all drugs. To clarify, “decriminalize” does not mean “legalize”, drugs are still illegal to use and traffic but instead of jail time for use, drug users only face administrative fines. The drug usage in Portugal grew steady worse so that in 1998 the government hired a committee of experts to find the most effective way to deal with the problem. The committee concluded the best option would be to remove the criminal aspect of taking drugs and reduce the penalties to mere fines. In a report done about this policy change, it states that “Since decriminalization, life-time prevalence rates (which measure how many people have consumed a particular drug or drugs over the course of their lifetime) in Portugal have decreased for various age groups.” Contrary to fears that Portugal would become a drug haven for users the world over, 95% of the drug takers fined are Portuguese, showing no change from before the policy. Many other countries such as Spain and Germany have incorporated aspects of drug decimalization within their laws to help deal with their own drug problems.

Removing the stigma of being convicted of a criminal offense is a major reason for the effectiveness of this policy. Those who have drug problems no longer fear the penalty of jail and can seek medical help without fear. As the report states, “Portuguese decriminalization was never seen as a concession to the inevitability of drug abuse. To the contrary, it was, and is, seen as the most effective government policy for reducing addiction and its accompanying harms.” The government policy of criminalization prevented people from receiving help—a problem that went away once the harsh penalties disappeared. These real results, evident in the example of Portugal, can be achieved when we treat drug use not as a criminal act, but as a personal choice that should be addressed as a moral issue.

The current Drug ‘War’ waged by the American government needs to be majorly reanalyzed and rethought. According to recent studies by Harvard, the total cost of the ‘War’ ranges around $77 Billion and grows each year. By criminalizing drugs the government only creates violence in the forms of gangs and cartels, extremely high enforcement costs, and does nothing to address the moral issues of such choices. Countries such as Portugal should serve as leading examples of the beneficial effects decriminalizing has on actually reducing drug use. However, I feel the government thinks it can actually regulate personal behavior effectively and to cannot abandon their ‘War’ do to the government’s apparent inability to shrink. The Drug ‘War’ allows the government to expand its military presence and increase its ever-growing control over our lives. It uses what seem to be “self-evident” laws to infringe on personal liberties and try to further control our lives. Regardless of all that, the government policies do not even work to effectively reduce drug use or violence but rather cause more. I believe it is time we look to other, proven options to deal with drug use and try to end this failing ‘War’.

Tea Parties? Tea-baggers? Whats All the Fuss About?

Last Wednesday there was a bunch of "Tea" Parties in cities across the country. I was not apart of any, since I was golfing, but greatly wished to go to one. I did do my own personal part, writing up a short "Federal Government Fact Sheet" outlining the size of the national debt, future obligations, and the nature of the federal reserve. I didn't leave my name or anything because I didn't want people judging the facts on preconceived connotations. Much like the MSM (Mainstream Media) has labeled these Tea Parties as "Right-Wing, Conservative" posturing. This makes me frankly, a little pissed off. Not so much at the MSM, but at the Republicans.

What's really going on? The Republicans are simply jumping on the bandwagon of anti-big government spending and control. These Parties are not about taxes, they are about BIG-government. If the Republicans had any intelligence they would realize they are just to blame as the Democrats currently in office. Here's a great video of a Republican Congressman being booed as he tries to speak at a South Carolina Tea Party. This is exactly what we need: anger, frustration, and a large crowd. Enough with the politics of old. It's time for real action, and REAL change. The Republicans and Democrats are not at opposite sides of the political spectrum, they are both on the far left. Let me explain.

The Political Spectrum is presented the following way. On the left you have Liberalism: freedom in personal choices but highly regulated business. The extreme to the left is Socialism. On the right you have Conservatism: highly regulated personal choices but freedom in business. The extreme to the right is Fascism. However we see the problem being that the two extremes are really two names for the same thing: Totalitarianism, complete governmental control. The way to remedy this seeming conflict is to re-imagine what the political spectrum is. Instead of liberal vs. conservative, we place total government control on the left and zero government control on the right. Modern liberalism and conservatism would lie near the middle-left on this spectrum.

So now that we see that the two "competing" ideologies in our country are really much more similar than we imagine them, we should start looking at other options. Libertarianism offers a real change to these failing ideologies. Libertarianism says we should have no regulations on personal behavior (drugs, prostitution, religion, etc) and no regulations on business (no central bank, no SEC, no IRS). Basically, NO government, the far right of the new political spectrum. It truly is the only way to bring about real change in our country today. We have to start realizing that our problems lie not in greed, lack of regulation, crooked banksters, etc.; but that government causes all these problems to manifest into the financial disasters we are experiencing today. I will try to address specific ways this is true in future posts.

So the tea parties were a start. A start to a hopefully growing sense of resentment at our government. Enough with the current conservative, republican calls to a "limited" government. Don't you realize there will never exist such a paradigm? Government will always grow out of its restraints, and become large once again. I believe that the only way to really fix our problems is to purge the source of the disease, the State.

Third Eye Blind In Albion!!!

Ahhhh I can't believe it but Third Eye Blind is playing tonight in our dear little Albion College. The best is that it's free! Every year the school sets aside a large amount of money in order to bring one large artist or comedian at the end of the year. When I first saw the signs for the event I got the stupidest grin on my face. I have been a HUGE fan of Third Eye Blind for about 10 years now but have never seen them in concert. I still maintain that "Motorcycle Drive By" is one of the all time greatest songs written. Anyways, the show is in about an hour and I hope it's as amazing as the songs. "the four right chords can make me cry..."

Happy Tax Freedom Day!

Congrats America! Today is the day that we have "technically" earned enough wages to pay all the government tax, but the CBO calculated that actually if you factor in the $1.5 trillion deficit (almost forgot about that little detail) tax freedom day is actually another 45 days away, on May 29th. But thats not that bad... working half the year just to pay the government, is it? I mean think about all the great things they're doing for us: buying "toxic" assets (what does that even mean?), buying trillions of dollars of failed mortgages and government securities (I believe the Onion ran a piece on this kind of spending...), firing CEOs, and who can forget Bo? ( I sure hope Obama kept his promise of keeping it a purebred, because God knows thats what we care about...)

Well maybe those things aren't quite working out so great, but at least the state is spending the rest of our tax dollars wisely... aren't they? Then how come in Hawaii residents used their own money and labor to fix a park that the government said would take millions of dollars and years to fix? Maybe it has something to do with the fact that private enterprise is both cost efficient and actually gets the job done.

The Reason Foundation has put together a couple videos for tax day to remind us what we're paying for: "Tax Facts to Make Your Head Explode" and "3 Great Reasons to Pay Your Taxes".

I already blogged about why taxes are legal theft here, so please read that to get my basic overview on how the government legally steals from you. Just think about it, if I came up to you, demanded 30% of your money, and pulled a gun on you if you didn't comply I would be thrown in jail as a petty crook! So how can we give the state power we as indivduals do not possess? We can't, it doesn't make moral, ethical, or logic sense whatsoever, but we accept it anyways.

The State is force, the State is aggression. I do not care what services they provide (they all suck anyways) the simple truth is they act with force and not by choice. Would anyone in their right mind actually pay their taxes if they had a real choice? Hell no! Everyone knows half the money is wasted on needless bureaucracy and after all of that we still get a half finished product.

Arguments for taxes I've heard have included: "If the government didn't provide roads, schools, or police we wouldn't have them", or "I don't mind paying taxes for health care and schools, I just don't support things like the War". Well both arguments are flawed. It's ridiculous to think the government is the only entity that could provide these services. If that's true we wouldn't have private schools, private highways, or private security... which we have them all and they provide vastly better service. And to say you support some things but not others the government does is to say you don't support the government at all. Because you are partly realizing the lack of choice that comes from forced taxes, and that the government has total control over your money and how it spends it. We must follow this to its logical end that the State is aggression and is no better than a gang or the Mafia.

Well this is not the most well put together blog post, but I'm glad I got some thoughts down. I also think I've set a new personal record for links (go me). Please comment and read! Thanks.

Money = Debt

This is quite a hard subject to address concisely but I will try my best to explain this system: the system of modern money. A system where money = debt.

Most every modern nation operates under what is called "fractional-reserve banking" in which a Central Bank controls the supply of a nation's money. In our country we have a Central Bank know as the Federal Reserve, but more on them later. To understand our 'modern' money system one must understand what fractional-reserve banking is.

When a commercial bank receives a deposit (e.g. you take your paycheck to the bank and put it into your savings account) the bank will add those funds into their reserves. Now many think the money is saved inside the banks vault and you can access that money at anytime. This is false. A bank does keep some money inside of its vaults but only the amount of reserve it is required to have on hand. This "reserve requirement" is set by the Central Bank, and is typically set around 10%. What does that mean? It means that for every $100 you deposit in the bank they will only keep $10 in their reserves.

So what happens to the the other $90? Well that money then becomes available for the bank to loan out, hence the name "fractional-reserve banking"--they only keep a fraction of deposits as reserves. The $90 can now be lent out as a loan since it is considered "excess reserves" and the bank is not required to place it in their reserves. Now for our example let us say the bank lends out the $90. What happens next? Well here is where the story gets interesting and complex so please pay close attention.

One would reasonably assume that $90 comes from the actual deposit of the $100, where $10 is keep in reserves, and the remaining $90 is lent out. But this is not the case. The bank actually keeps all $100. When it lends out the $90 it simply writes the money into their books and becomes new credit *tada!* in the form of $90 is suddenly created out of thin air. Now this is where most people become lost. How can the bank just write the $90 into their books if it does not exist? It is because the Central Bank grants commercial banks the power of money creation called the "money multiplier" or "multiple deposit creation" (link to federal reserve sheet). This process continues on as the person receiving the loan will then deposit the $90 in their bank, where they keep 10%, or $9, in their reserve, and can then loan out $81, and so on for theoretically infinity, until about $900 dollars, or 9 times the original deposit can be created from this system out of thin air. So again, the bank does not loan out the actual $90 it is not required to keep in reserves, it merely uses that money as a liability to back the creation of a new $90.

So here's the crux, here's where money actually equals debt. Because banks create this new money based off the promise of the debtor to pay back his debt, they do not actual loan out people's savings. New money is given value only by a debtors promise to repay the loan. Hence, money = debt. Let's continue to see the full effects of this.

The $90 from the original deposit is actually used by the bank for their own investments. This way if everyone decided at once to remove their money from the bank, the bank would default and fail. This is called a "bank run" and happened various times in history (most notably during the Great Depression). This happens because the bank only holds about 10% of all deposits in their holdings. The rest becomes invested in various funds or assets and would have to be liquidated (meaning sold off so the bank can receive cash for them) for the bank to recover all deposits. Considering the trillion dollar balance sheets of major banks, such a process is impossible. This is way such an institute as the Federal Reserve has to exist. Called the "lender of last resort" the Federal Reserve was established to prevent such disasters as bank runs, by being given the power to create their own money.

Take a look at a dollar bill. At the top you will see the words "Federal Reserve Note". You will also notice the words "This bill is legal tender for all debts public and private". What this means is that you are required by law to repay any debts in court with only these Federal Reserve Notes. The Federal Reserve controls the supply of money in the economy through the use of "Open Market Operations". These operations include the buying and selling of government securities, also known as bonds. Bonds are loans made to firms or institutions based off their debt. So in order for the Federal Reserve to introduce new "credit" into the financial system it buys and sells government bonds, aka government debt. So again we see the same formula, money = debt. The Federal Reserve prints up (or more specially enters into a computer a new entry) Federal Reserve Notes in exchange for Government Bonds. Debt for Money, Money for Debt.

What does this mean for me and you, normal everyday people? What this means is that we can never, never get rid of debt. Our entire monetary system is based on the application of debt in order to create money. The banks create money out of thin air, out of liabilities, and we wonder how in just a matter of days last Fall we "lost" trillions of dollars of wealth. And since the Federal Reserve inserts money into the economy through the purchase of government bonds, the United States will always be in debt--to it's own central bank. Money (like everything) has no reason to be controlled by the government. But first we must understand what money is to understand this.

Money has three functions: it acts as a store of value (you receive compensation for you work in the form of money as physical value), a unit of account (goods and services are quoted in terms of money), and a medium of exchange (it functions as a common good in use of market exchanges instead of straight barter). Money itself is a commodity--it is a good by itself-- but a commodity that is used as a medium of exchange. Examples of money have included: tree bark, seashells, wooden sticks, and most notably gold and silver. The reason people accepted these goods as a common medium of exchange is because they found value in them. The coinage of gold and silver throughout history has shown to be one of the most effective and accepted mediums of exchange, but anything can act as money as long as people find value in it and can effectively use it as a medium of exchange. In our Central Bank monetary system our money is pieces of paper. These pieces of paper themselves are so cheap in real terms that they are essentially worthless. The only reason our dollars have value is that people have faith in the Central Bank to keep the supply of currency in balance with the demand for goods and services. My question is then: why would we place such power in the hands of so few people?

Well, there is only two answers to such a question: our leaders are delusional and believe in faulty economics such as Keynesian, which tell them they have the power to fix entire economies; the other option is that they want power-- they want to control our lives in every way possible and controlling our money is one of the most potent ways to do it.

I could go on explaining how our system is both UnConstitutional and unethical but I have written quite enough. It is so important to understand this system, the effect it has on your life, and how broken it has become.

Further Study:

Zeitgeist Video explaining monetary system (I don't agree with this whole movie but their explanation of the monetary system is extremely well put together)

Money As Debt Video (great history behind our current system)

The Creature from Jekyll Island (overview of the Federal Reserve)

What Has Government Done to Our Money? (great book by the amazing Murray Rothbard)
please read as much as you can on Mises.org, it has an enormous amount of information available for free.

Getting Back Into the Swing of Things

It has been quite awhile since my last post. I've been lazy, and the people have responded (by people I mean myself because no one actually reads this blog). Well, I plan to start writing again, if for nothing just so I can work on my writing skills and explore my ideas through this medium.

I have begun applying for a Fall internship. So far I've just sent an application to the Cato Institute and I hope they accept me since thats my #1 choice. They are the foremost institute when it comes to Libertarian studies, and I know I could learn a lot from their researchers. My desire is to not just have these ideas about free markets, individualism, and so on -- I want to be able to empirically prove to people that these ideas work and present the evidence. Working at the Cato Institute I hope will provide me with a head start into such ventures.

I'm still torn however when it comes to what I want as a career. I still want to be involved in the business world, especially in resort/property development, but I feel such a call to activism that I have to pursue it somehow. I figure that if I devote most of my early career to research in economics and activism, it will allow me in the future to pursue my other interests such as development. You gotta follow your heart, and I can't ignore this passion within me. I hear all the time "Why do you care so much? You cannot change anything." And I'll admit, I feel that way sometimes. But if I do nothing, I'll have no right to object to what happens. If I do try, then at least I can say I gave it my all in the fight for a better world. Hell, I'm young; this is what we do right?

Maybe I'm wrong about everything. Maybe I'm only partially correct. But no one can ever know the absolute about anything, only try and get as close as possible to it. The point is we always need to be striving for that absolute, the unreachable perfection. It's what drives us to a better world, a better people, a better self. I don't think it actually exists--its just an idea. But what a powerful idea it is. All I want is for us as humans to realize the importance of reaching for that unattainable height, that unreachable precipice . We can always be better, we can always improve ourselves and our world. Not that we should lose ourselves entirely in this endless pursuit--we have to enjoy progress as it's made--but we should never settle. This should not depress us, feeling as if what we do is never good enough, but rather it should excite us to realize the boundless potential we posses. My hope is that I can live in a world where the only person who can hold you back is yourself. A world that encourages action and growth, not dependancy. It's not that hard to imagine. As John Lennon wrote, "It's easy if you try".

**Sorry for getting so philosophical, but it has been awhile since I've written**

Zimbabwe - Destruction by the Government

Gold For Bread - Video

This video just breaks my heart, especially the part with the small child scared and broken because he has no food to eat. This is what happens to a country whose government destroys the economy through monetary destruction. Twenty years ago Zimbabwe actually had a stronger dollar than the U.S. dollar. Today the money is as worthless as the paper it is printed on. There is no change in the countries people, or their production, but their money is worthless. They have to mine and pan for gold all day long just to buy a loaf of bread. This country has gone from developed to third-world overnight, all because of their central bank. A central bank that inflated the currency into a hyperinflation spiral.

Here's the scary part: inflating (or printing money) is exactly what our central bank (The Federal Reserve) is doing at an alarming pace.

What this chart shows is the unprecedented increase in Federal Reserve holdings of assets (namely AIG and other financials). But when the Fed buys these assets it doesn't use a store of cash from its vaults, it prints the money (or more specially enters the transaction on a computer) out of thin air. What happens is a major increase in the money supply, and according to the law of supply and demand this means the value of dollar has to drop due to the major increase of supply and no change in demand. Simply put, the Fed is causing every dollar in your wallet to lose its value. And with its recent actions, the possibility of a Zimbabwe like hyperinflation is becoming increasingly high.

$77 Billion - The true cost of the Drug War

More and more people are starting to question the so called "War on Drugs" and its true costs to society. In this above video, a Harvard (yes 'the' Harvard) professor of economics argues that around $77 billion could be saved if Marijuana was legalized. This issue has been a hot topic recently with videos like Ron Paul discussing Marijuana on Larry King. My question is: If Prohibition did not work in the 1920s with alcohol, how do we expect prohibition to work today with drugs?

This is a very interesting topic to myself because I use to scoff at arguments that drugs should be legalized. "How can we legalize hard drugs?" I would ask, "There has to be a limit to what people are allowed to take shouldn't there?". But then one has to ask, with prescription drugs now the fourth leading cause of death in america, is the system really working?

You can look at the issue a few different ways. One way is to say that by legalizing drugs would add enormous revenue to the government by way of taxes on the drugs, and by the amount of funds not spent on fighting drug cartels. Another way is to argue about the benefits drugs like marijuana have in treating pain especially in cancer patients, and how it lacks the dangerous side-effects of most prescription drugs. But I think the most important way to look at the issue is it is a matter of personal choice.

By creating a law the government is simply saying all the obvious side effects of drug abuse (loss of job, broken family relations, deteriorating health, addiction, extreme money cost, death...) are not enough for people. Instead the State has to pile on fines and jail time to add to such costs. But instead of all cost being put squarely on the individual who decides to take drugs, all of society has to pay for one persons choice through the funding of the "War of Drugs". But its ludicrous. If a person thinks they can avoid all the inherent costs already associated with taking drugs, what is a fine or jail time to them? If they think they can avoid the inherent costs, then they most assuredly think they can avoid any state induced costs. Why do I have to pay for a choice someone has already decided to take regardless of a law? I shouldn't because the State has no right to force someone not to make that choice.

By taking drugs, that person has made the choice to accept the costs inherent with drug use, and that is their choice to make. It is obvious that a 'law' does not keep someone from not making such a choice or we wouldn't spend billions fighting drug use. Whenever the State tries to tell people they cannot do something, they usually do exactly that. We should have learned our lesson with the failed policy of alcohol Prohibition (at least that was Constitutionally amended unlike the current drug prohibition). People will not stop taking drugs because of a law, just like people will not stop speeding or stealing because its against the law. The only way to effectively combat such aberrant behavior is through education and letting people make choices on their own. Sometimes letting someone fail is the only way they can learn. The freedom to fail is how we can only truly succeed.

Bailouts and Bull**** - 20/20 special

Youtube Link

John Stossel tells it how it is again. This special starts out by exposing the "consensus" opinion about stimulus packages then deals with other government influenced issues: roads, education, the American Dream, and immigration. Honestly I don't know how people actually think the government can do a better job than the private sector. I think its because people equate it this way: private=profits=evil.... But people fail to see the backward thinking this is.

Profits are not "evil" but actually serve the interest of the people much, much better than the public sector. When profits are the driving force it is the consumer who decides how well the company does. If the company cannot provide a service that suits a consumer their profits will drop and the company will either change for the better, change their business to something profitable, or fail. However, if the government is in charge they are not driven by profits, so they are not driven by the consumer. Instead they rely on tax dollars -- money that is not earned by providing a superior product but instead by forcefully taking money from citizens. What would you prefer? A company that responds to your decision to buy its product or not? Or a company that does not care whether or not its product is what's best for the consumer because it will get money for it regardless?

Contrary to popular belief, services such as roads, health care, and education do not have to be provided by the government. In fact, history shows us that when put in the care of the private sector all of these services are provided better, cheaper, and to more people. Again I think the best way to think about it is to change how we view "profits". To profit from something is not to take advantage of people. Profits are indications that people have chosen the goods or services a particular company offers over other companies. In order to keep profits companies need to keep providing this superior service or they will lose their consumers to competing firms. In a free society there can be no "taking advantage" of consumers because they can choose not to buy from a company that doesn't provide a superior good or service. However, when the government provides something we have no choice -- we have to pay taxes, regardless if we feel the good or service we receive is worth it or not. Now if that isn't "taking advantage" of people I don't know what is.

The 9-12 Project: Rebuilding America

I have been following the Glenn Beck program for oh… about a year now, and have enjoyed the commentary of the host, Beck. His common sense, no bull attitude towards major issues appealed to me in a way. Anyways, he recently moved from CNN Headline News to Fox News and his show is already one of the most viewed on the air. His show today was a special with a studio audience entitled "We Surround Them". The theme was that the government, media, and everyone else are not the real ones in control... we are, and there are people who believe in the principles and values that our country was founded on. I found the show inspiring because I actually felt connected to thousands of people I had never met but who shared in the same frustrations and hopes I had of this country. Glenn's call to everyone was to become the country we were on 9-12-2001 -- the day after 9-11 when we all stood together as Americans -- and forget about all the political parties and little games we play in Washington; the games that are destroying our country and ripping it apart. There's a website put up where people can connect and discover the principles and values our country was founded on and hopefully a grassroots movement can get started in getting our country back. I seriously feel like a Patriot in the Sons of Liberty movement started by Samuel Adams before the Revolutionary War. I'm ready to fight for this country, but more importantly I'm ready to fight for Liberty and Freedom for all people. I hope anyone who reads this feels the same.

Nationalized Citibank Commercial - Funny

The New F***ing Citibank - watch more funny videos

"Freedom Watch", amazing libertarian show

Sorry for the long delay (guy needs a break)

Well it looks like Fox News (aka Faux News) is actually beginning to do some things right. First with bringing on Glenn Beck, which you can see at 5pm, and his common sense apporach to politics. But this show takes the cake. Not on tv but on Foxnews.com/strategyroom, "Freedom Watch" is basically a Libertarian roundtable for an entire hour. Judge Napolitano hosts the show and regular guests include: Ron Paul, Peter Schiff, Lew Rockwell, Tracy Burns (I could do without her), Cody Willard, and so on... Basically every person I have been following the past several months and they finally have an outlet to speak without being called "crazy" or "doom and gloom". Please check out the show and support it--hopefully it will garner enough support to get on the air. It's on the website every Wednesday at 2PM

(This is just part 1 - follow the link and you can find the other parts on Youtube)

Youtube link

Obama's Budget: A Visual View

Visual Look at Obama's Huge Budget

Had to post something today. These link provides a very straight forward and easy to read overview of the Whitehouse budget. I could go into a long discussion of each line but I'd rather let you look and judge for yourself.

Don't you wish you could spend more than you earn and have it be perfectly fine? It doesn't work for individuals and it doesn't work for governments. It is the same result for both... bankruptcy. When that happens to a government, bad things happen (think back to World War II and Germany and you get the picture).

I Am So Fed Up... Why Aren't You!?

*Disclaimer* -- This is a rant, read with caution --

I really am fed up. I don't know how much more I can take. It seems every single day I am utterly amazed at the complete bullshit that comes from Washington. I can't count how many times I have said "this is ridiculous", only to have to repeat myself the next day. I'm so fed up at the obvious lack of common sense prevalent in our politicians, our media, our schools, and our country. I am so fed up at being called "radical" or having "interesting ideas". I am especially fed up with the complete lack of interest and knowledge shown by almost all of my peers.

I just don't understand why issues I find so vitally important to my future and our country's future go unnoticed by the vast majority of today's youth. So many people my age were so eager and excited to be involved in politics for the first time--especially when it came to Obama-- but trying asking them their stance on a particular policy or viewpoint I was met with a rather blank stare, or more directly, a honest "I don't really know". I don't know... but I have an opinion on it. I don't know but I'll cast my vote for him because I have to right? I mean... I can't vote for that other guy!

I guess I can't blame my generation that much. We are products of the culture around us. A culture that idolizes short-term pleasure and cannot plan any further than the weekend. We hold childhood beliefs, yet conform to the latest trends, never really decided on what we actually believe but rather letting our emotions guide our actions. We easily profess faith in leaders who promise everything, and disregard those who promise nothing they cannot do or should do.

Of course, many will say they aren't quite as shallow as I suggest, and they are correct. It's not so much that we're shallow but that we really aren't anything. We don't like to study things or take a particular stance that may be considered "out of the norm" because we like to fit in; "don't rock the boat" we are told, leave such issues to adults.

Well the adults fucked up... big time. I have lost all respect for any leader responsible for getting us into this situation, then having the audacity to tell us how to fix it. I refuse to let myself listen to the rhetoric one day longer, the lies, and broken promises have been spoken one to many times. Everyday I just want to scream at my tv, at the talking heads on the talk shows, at the corrupt politicians who make the situation worse everyday, at the mindless sheep who believe everything they are told without an oz. of mental effort put into really understanding it. But hey, why the hell do I care so much? There's nothing I can do about it right? Life's to short to be stressed out...

Well, I do care. I haven't cared about anything quite as much as this, and to ignore it would be an insult to my intelligence. These aren't irrelevant issues--they affect my life and the lives of everyone. I can't just sit still--or worse ignore--these people who are deciding things that will affect how I live my life. Damnit! Only I should be able to make those kind of decisions. I don't want some asshole in Washington who knows nothing about me telling me how to live my life!

People... wake up! Seriously, you have no excuses anymore. Research, discuss, debate, learn, admit when you don't know something, have the courage to stand up for what you believe in, and even more important, have the courage to actually put your belief in something. These are extraordinary times we are living in. Stop watching history and take an active part in it. You only have one life on earth... are you going to let the forces around you control your life? Or do you have the strength to determine your own path? I hope you do.

Taxes: Legalized Theft

Taxes are legalized thief, plain and simple. The government is “legally” forcing money from you and we are expected not only to peacefully comply, but we are actually told that it is patriotic to pay taxes. I think I might drown in the bullshit…

Let me tell you why taxes are legalized thief in a simple example. Say you are walking home one night and suddenly feel a gun pressed into your skull. A man then asks you to either give him your wallet, or he will take it from your dead body (to reference Godfather, he is making you “an offer you couldn’t refuse”). Now do you really have a choice in this situation? Not really. You either lose your wallet or you lose your life, and a high majority of people would chose to save their life. Now I’m going to do this same example but change it up a little bit. Again you are walking home and a man comes up to you. He tells you to give him his wallet but gives you the explanation that he will use your money to pay for your kid’s school, your roads, provide healthcare to the needy, and protect you from terrorists. If say that sounds great but I would rather get those services from someone who specializes in each of those services. The man replies that if you don’t hand over the wallet he will shoot you, once again bringing up the lack of choice you had in the last scenario. Now I think we can all agree that the situation is the same, the man is still forcefully taking your money, but in the second scenario the man claims his motives are for your best interest.

To bring this back to the topic at hand all one has to do is replace the man with the government in the second situation and you have what we call taxes. The government tells you that you must give a predetermined percentage of your wages to the government or you will face the consequences. First being fines, then if you refuse to pay the fines you face jail time, and if you try to refuse the jail time? When then you will actually find a gun pointed at your head, except this time instead of a thief pointing the gun it’s a policeman (who is controlled by the government, but I think you get the point). But just like the second situation the government tells you that this is necessary for them to provide all those wondrous benefits they bestow upon us; public roads, public education, Medicare & Medicaid, national defense (which has somehow extended to well beyond our national borders), and so on with the thousands of government programs implemented in today’s society. But hold on… I thought we determined in the examples that regardless of what the man’s intentions were to use your money, that it was still wrong for him to forcefully take it from you?

Logically my next question is then how do we make this major exception for the government? How is it when the government takes your money in the form of taxes and does so with the stipulation that if you do not pay you will face punishment, that we just lie back and accept it? Quite simply I think we are both ignorant and fearful. We are ignorant of the alternatives to taxation and government control in general. And we are fearful of the implications of not paying taxes and also what would happen if government was not given money to fund all of its programs. Also a major factor is that of inertia. The fact is as long as there has ever been an entity label “government”, that entity has collected taxes on its members and this has remained true for thousands of years. So, taxes, having been around for as long as current written history, this force of inertia makes most people not even stop and consider the implications taxation truly has and whether or not it is just or not. The force needed to stop something such as taxation is so great that most people do not even bother to worry about it.

Regardless, I feel that there are things people should know about taxation and the government in general – firstly, that taxes are inherently wrong (which I feel I’ve already made a simple case for); second, that the government should not provide all the services it does and thus should have no need for taxes in the first place; and thirdly, that private enterprise can both provide for all the services government offers but do so at an incredibly efficient and fair fashion.

New Music Spotlight: Mike Posner & the Brain Trust

iTunes Link

Shout out to Jack for the link. Totally free and totally awesome, check out this local talent. A great blend of pop and hip hop, this mixtape will definitely impress.