Nanny Statism – Page 17 – The Libertarian Standard

Live and Let Die

(Austrian) Economics, Health Care, The Right, Vulgar Politics

By Wirkman Virkkala / May 13, 2010 / 6 minutes of reading

A schoolmate of mine, a Christian conservative, once insisted that the reason our public school teachers informed us about Eskimos leaving their aged on the ice to die was to prepare the way for doing something similar to our oldsters.

That seemed like quite large dose of paranoia, to me. After all, also in public school we learned that Aztecs cut the hearts out of those they sacrificed to their gods. The pyramid steps of Teotihuacan ran red with blood. We were told this, I thought, because it was true. Could there have been an organ harvesting agenda behind the history lesson?

Seemed unlikely.

Before asserting a major conspiracy, it strikes me as worth addressing, openly, all aspects of the problem that might give birth to such concerns. Was euthanasia of the elderly in the future? Probably only when I get old, I thought, darkly. But seriously, why would it be considered?

Because of the expense, of course.

But whose expense?

This is lightly touched on in Thomas Sowell’s recent column, “A ‘Duty to Die’?”

…

Live and Let DieRead More »

Live and Let Die Read Post »

“The plan’s perfect… it will work this time”

Drug Policy, Immigration, Police Statism, Victimless Crimes, Vulgar Politics

By Michael Barnett / May 12, 2010 / 3 minutes of reading

Back when Barack Hussein Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize for telling the Armenians to get over it (genocide at the hands of the Turks), I cautioned that “The continuing collapse of Western Civilization is going to produce a multitude of similar ridiculousnesses, so be prepared.”

Well, today I watched one such unintentionally hilarious (and notably revolting) “ridiculousness”: a John McCain television ad encouraging completion of “the danged fence.” In case you haven’t seen it or you have but want another snicker at McCain’s expense, here it is:

I often wonder the process by which commercials and political ads with such phony, contrived premises are approved for release to media markets. Does anyone really take seriously an actor dressed in doctor’s garb explaining the health benefits of the drug he or she is touting? Is this ridiculous, pretend, scripted conversation between McCain and some (possibly authentic) jack-booted tax leech any different? I picture some advisor or media consultant pitching the idea to his team, and instead of being laughed out of the room, those around the table exclaim, “Oh yeah! That will work!” and the project leader green-lights it with a confident “Let’s make it happen!” Somehow the commercial makes its way past the politician’s consultants and advisors without being vetoed, and finds itself in front of a focus group which… responds favorably? Unbelievable. I find such ads insulting prima facie. The contrived nature of the commercial combined with the claim that “the plan’s perfect” and “it will work this time” comprise its “hilarious” aspect.

The revolting aspect, of course, is the call to militarize the border (with National Guard troops), add another 3000 Border Patrol Agents, and wall up the border. This “perfect plan” fits with what I warned about in this post, specifically:

If there is one thing every libertarian should know about government it’s that government cannot efficiently or effectively perform any “service” without resorting to totalitarian police-statism. When the government minimizes costs (don’t laugh), it performs at woefully substandard levels. Think of the levees around New Orleans which failed during Hurricane Katrina, for instance. For adequate quality of service, for instance the Hoover Dam or those stretches of elevated interstate cutting through the marshes and swamps of Louisiana (very fine work), the government has to overpay enormously. The systemic defects inherent in government bureaucracy cannot be overcome, as they are due (mostly) to the absence of a profit motive. The government simply cannot provide quality services at market prices; often, the government cannot provide quality service at any price. What the government can do, however, is provide brutality very cheaply, for a while.

This isn’t to say that the United States doesn’t have an immigration problem. It does; or rather, it has a problem which the mass-invasion of the Mexican lower class exacerbates, namely the massive welfare state. “Fighting immigration” is simply another misguided, alleged “solution” to yet another unintended consequence of government interventionism. It’s stunning that Americans haven’t learned how dangerous it is to empower the government to “make them safer”, given the War on Drugs, which has left the Bill of Rights decimated, led to the incarceration of more citizens than any other country (both nominally and per capita), and taken the lives of many innocent people and their pets:

It’s certainly delusional to believe that militarizing the border won’t lead to similar atrocities — violations of person and property — and for what? All this so that the insidious welfare state doesn’t have to be dismantled? How sad.

“The plan’s perfect… it will work this time” Read Post »

What’s the Real Message from Those GM Ads?

Business, Democracy, Humor, Immigration, Nanny Statism

By Wilton Alston / May 5, 2010 / 7 minutes of reading

“Whatever the State saith is a lie; whatever it hath is a theft.”
~ Nietzsche

There is no shortage of reporting about GM CEO Ed Whitacre’s recent series of TV ads touting GM’s ostensible early repayment of federal loan money. Fox News, or as I like to refer to it, Faux News, is all over it. A website known as Video Café – Crooks and Liars has posted a very good review of the coverage, along with a YouTube video of the actual ad, for those who have not seen it.

Here’s what shocks me about the ad: Nothing.

It strikes me as pretty obvious that GM had to expect that someone would find out about their using loan money to repay loan money at some point. Did Whiteacre, clearly a man with intelligence, credentials, and connections, think nobody would put 2-and-2 together? Of course not. He didn’t care. He knows it doesn’t matter.

Indulge me as I recount one of my favorite jokes to begin illustrating why.

A burned-out executive moves to the hills to escape the rat race. He moves into an old cabin in what he believes to be sparsely-populated woods and starts his new life. He hopes to decompress and recharge and maybe re-connect with the fast-paced life he once knew at some later point.

One day, he hears a knock on his door. In walks a man wearing nothing but a pair of tattered overalls, some old work boots, and a broad smile. “Hey there, neighbor!” exclaims the man. “My name is Enoch and I’m your neighbor!”

Initially taken aback, the executive-turned-hillbilly gathers himself and extends his hand. “Pleased to meet you, Enoch. My name is, Bill Exeter. I just moved here from the Big City.” Bill figures it is about time he got more acquainted with his new environment anyway.

Enoch begins, “Well, Bill, I just wanted to invite you to a little gathering at my house on Friday.” What great timing! Bill can relax a little and meet some of his neighbors too. Sensing Bill might be a little uneasy about coming to a strange neighbor’s house, Enoch begins to pitch the party.

“Listen Bill, I need to warn you. My parties tend to get a little wild.” Bill smiles, feeling better about his new neighborhood. Enoch continues, “I can almost guarantee that there will be massive consumption of homebrew alcohol.”

Bill thinks, “Sounds good!” and responds, “Enoch, I can hold my liquor!”

Enoch continues, “Well then, I should probably also mention that this consumption of alcohol tends to make my guests a little bawdy. As a matter of fact, things got bad enough last time that there was wild sex during the party! I expect this one to be more of the same.”

Bill has been away from the rat race for long enough that the possibility of sex sounds good. “Well, Enoch, I’m no virgin, if I must say so myself.”

Enoch continues, “OK. I should also probably mention that fights tend to break out in the aftermath of many of my gatherings, especially after the sex.”

Bill, still happily pondering the possibility of sex, confidently says, “Hey Enoch, I can handle myself.”

Enoch ends with, “Excellent! I’ll look for you around 8:00 this Friday then.” Enoch turns to leave the house.

Just before Enoch closes the door behind himself, Bill yells, “Hey Enoch! What should I wear?”

Enoch shrugs his shoulders and says, “It don’t much matter. It’s just going to be the two of us.”

<Rim Shot>

The key point—the understanding that is manifested over and over in U.S. politics—is contained in that punch line: It doesn’t much matter anyway. GM received the TARP money, even though it is not a financial firm. One might argue that since GM used to own GMAC—its erstwhile lending mechanism—it qualifies as a financial firm. That strikes me as a stretch, but that does appear to be the partial mechanism GM used to get the cash. Certainly, the TARP money was specifically for financial firms. According to Wiki:

The Troubled Asset Relief Program, commonly referred to as TARP, is a program of the United States government to purchase assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial sector. It is the largest component of the government’s measures in 2008 to address the subprime mortgage crisis.

GM mismanaged and underperformed its way into a deep financial hole. It didn’t much matter. The responsibility for GM’s problems rested with GM. It didn’t much matter. In the aftermath of all that underperforming, GM had the gall to ask the government for some cash, a huge wad of cash, and acquired that money for both GM and GMAC.

The overwhelming majority of Americans did not think any firm should be bailed out. It didn’t much matter. Congress gave money ostensibly aimed at saving the financial sector from the subprime mortgage crisis to a troubled automobile manufacturer with a management and sales crisis.

The American taxpayer was under no obligation to GM, its shareholders, or its employees. It didn’t much matter. GM got the cash. They have now paid back some of the early money with some of the later money, and have gone on TV to brag about it, despite the fact that such an obvious ruse should be found out. It didn’t much matter.

While some of this behavior initially upset me, looking back on it—particularly in context with the normal behavior of the State—I see that my anger was misplaced. The State generally and its agents in particular spew forth all manner of unmitigated, easily-identifiable equine feces on a routine basis. Think not? Here’s a recent sampling of talking points that have, inexplicably yet inexorably, fallen from the mouths of our leaders:

“They hate us for our freedoms.” (This phrase is generally uttered in regard to Islamic terrorists wanting to attack the U.S. Somehow the fact that other equally-free countries are not being similarly attacked gets obscured. Some have argued, persuasively, that such a designation as “free” for the U.S. is a little dicey anyway.)

“… too big to fail.” (What does this even mean? Can a firm be too small to fail as well? Can a firm be too big to succeed? Can a firm be too small to succeed? What does size have to do with the economic realities of losing money at business?)

“You’re either with us or you’re with the terrorists.” (That a reasonably-intelligent representative of the species Homo sapiens could say something this insipid and not be placed in a padded room—wearing a straitjacket and a mouth guard—speaks to the awesome power of patriotism, and stupidity, but maybe not in that order.)

“Illegal immigration represents a danger to the future of the U.S.” (The U.S. didn’t even have a comprehensive set of regulations on immigration until 1952. The Constitution doesn’t even mention immigration in those terms. Hell, damned-near everyone in the U.S. except for the people who were already here when America was “discovered” is an immigrant or descended from one anyway. Here’s my question: When does an immigrant become a visitor or a guest?)

“We fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them here.” (C’mon. Does anyone think the U.S. was in danger of being invaded by terrorists? Really? The truth of the matter is this: The U.S. military murders innocents abroad. Call me touchy, but that might upset me too.)

So Ed Whiteacre went on television, in an ad ironically entitled “Trust” and bragged about GM “putting people back to work” and how GM had “repaid their loan in full, 5 years ahead of schedule.” Don’t hate the playa! He was only doing what politicians do to the American public on a regular schedule: lie for specific gains, to an audience who wants to hear the lies, while knowing that even if the lie is found out, it won’t matter that much anyway. Consider: Since anyone who was seriously considering buying a GM car probably didn’t care about the bailout, what’s the downside of trying to rope in a few other suckers via bogus advertising? Moral hazard epitomized.

Is GM going to stop getting government bail-out money? Nope. Will any subsequent event preclude the next chronically mismanaged firm from getting a boatload of statist cash? Not likely. Will the skilled propagandists who do their best to lead rank-and-file Americans around by the nose change their tactics? Absolutely not.

It doesn’t much matter. It’s just them and our money—taken at gunpoint—anyway.

(Cross-posted at LRC.)

What’s the Real Message from Those GM Ads? Read Post »

The War on Nutrition

Nanny Statism

By Editor / April 24, 2010 / 3 minutes of reading

Slate writer Melinda Wenner Moyer makes a big to-do over new mainstream medical-research findings that suggest that saturated fats affect your blood-cholesterol levels in ways that don’t really hurt you, while processed sugars affect your blood-cholesterol levels in ways that do hurt you. I agree with Moyer that the topic is something over which it is worthwhile to make a big to-do. The bottom line: LDL (“bad, bad”) cholesterol comes in a variety of flavors, distinguished by the sizes of the particles in your blood. Big LDL particles — those you get from eating fatty meat — seem not to attach to artery walls; those are the heart-neutral particles. Small and medium LDL particles — the ones you get into your blood by eating processed sugars and flours — do appear to attach to artery walls and contribute to heart disease.

The knowledge that processed carbohydrates lead to problems with blood cholesterol isn’t new, however. Dr. Sheldon Reiser published studies showing that processed-carb intake raises LDL and triglyceride levels back in 1983. (You’ll have to visit a library to find this: “Physiological Differences between Starches and Sugars,” in Medical Applications of Clinical Nutrition pp. 133-177, ed. By J. Bland, Keats Pub. New Canaan, CN, 1983.)

I’ve known how to eat well for years, but recently have set aside the time and developed the motivation to really do it. What occurred to me while I was shopping: My wife and I are now shopping mostly for meats (including fish), cheeses, nuts, and a huge variety of fresh produce. In other words, the “radical” healthy diets some of us are eating, including the “paleo” diet, remind me of what my grandmother ate (though our grandparents didn’t know to avoid bread, especially white bread). Of course, we’re avoiding processed foods, which everybody has known to do for decades.

So, what’s the federal government to do? Government officials have been waging war on our meat and fat intake for years, most recently with the updated food pyramid (the one from 2005, due to be updated this year) that calls for six or more servings of grain (only half of them whole grain), and only two of meat, per day — a diet likely to make anyone but a marathon runner gain body fat and tiny-bit LDL. Knowing that the 2005 pyramid is already obsolete, is there any reason to trust the next one, or any reason to trust that the government’s new war on salt is any more credible?

The final answer: Don’t trust the government’s war on nutrition (ostensibly a war on bad nutrition) any more than its wars on inflation, unemployment, drugs, or terrorism. Inform yourself, take control of your own health, and enjoy a long and healthy life in spite of the government’s attempts to help.

The War on Nutrition Read Post »

That vaunted liberal tolerance

Anti-Statism, Nanny Statism, Police Statism, Taxation, The Left

By Michael Barnett / April 15, 2010 / 3 Comments / 2 minutes of reading

hateiseasy — Pro-Tax = Pro-War + Pro-Prison

First things first: Happy Tax Day to all my friends still living in the United States! And for those of you upset or angry about paying “your fair share” (which, incidentally, is only 43% of you), I’d like to remind you that thousands of Wall Street bankers, UAW “workers”, mortgage defaulters, and other welfare recipients are relying on you to pay their way. If that’s not enough to put a smile on your face, remember that you’re also financing the American Empire’s military adventures in the Middle East which make you safer and could not possible result in blowback (according to Sean Hannity and Rudy Giuliani). So, there’s that.

Speaking of taxes, here’s a left-wing career tax leech (public “school” teacher) demonstrating how tolerant liberals are of varying view points:

[Jason] Levin, the media teacher at Conestoga Middle School in Beaverton, is the leader of a group that says it wants to infiltrate and bring down the loosely organized anti-big-government Tea Party movement.

He has said he would seek to embarrass Tea Partiers by attending their rallies dressed as Adolf Hitler, carrying signs bearing racist, sexist and anti-gay epithets, and acting as offensively as possible — anything short of throwing punches.

In a now deleted post on his “Crash the Tea Party” Web site, Levin called on his supporters to collect the Social Security numbers — among other personal identifying information — about as many Tea Party supporters as possible at the numerous rallies scheduled to take place on Thursday – Tax Day.

“Some other thoughts are to ask people at the rally to sign a petition renouncing socialism. See just how much info you can get from these folks (name address, DOB, Social Security #). The more data we can mine from the Tea Partiers, the more mayhem we can cause with it!!!!” he wrote.

If you want smaller government and lower taxes, you are this avowed statist’s archnemesis — he really hates you. Shouldn’t liberals oppose the Empire’s wars in the Middle East, the bailouts and wealth transfers to Wall Street, the domestic spying programs, and the world’s largest prison system (population measured either way: in total and per capita), all of which are funded by taxes (either current or “borrowed” against future generations)? Sure, it’s possible this guy just lacks discernment, but that doesn’t justify his slimy scheme.

The silver lining here is that the Tea Party contingent can use this as evidence that their ranks are being infiltrated by pro-tax, pro-war, pro-prison leftists as the media continue to paint them as racists, bigots, and homophobes.

That vaunted liberal tolerance Read Post »