Opposing ‘Stimulus’ — Hundreds of Economists Sign on to Cato Institute Ad
This is supposed to be a paraody of those “Cialis” commercials, and lets just say they hit a home run. You have to watch it!
I have concluded that those who run the country are running it to the ground. I spend so much time debating these issues and to try and comprehend what these people think, and it is just unbearable. Perhaps this is a good thing? When will I go around just laughing at those people who wanted more government? Saying “I told you so”. Will I do this when people are dieing because of their government? I sure hope not, but I fear that is the only thing that will change this country. It is like a drug addiction, you need to hit rock bottom before you can change. Will they then wake up to the fact that government only makes things worse? That the Federal Reserve should be abolished? and a small Constitutional Republican government should be in place? Perhaps than my family and friends will realize that government and politics is not just a novelty issue, but one that changes lives, and dictates how you live (sadly). I sure hope the people in this country wise up. Every citizen matters, and nobody can afford to be apathetic. That is like handing your life over to government, please do something.
Like the many times before, I have come in disagreement with one of my teachers. This time I am going to drag it out into the light of logic.
Today we were talking about the theory of state formation. In this discussion he asserted that without a central authority there would be chaos. Only arguing the Hobbes point of view while acting as if John Locke never existed. He was giving us a metaphor to explain his point. He said that
nature was like a classroom or a bunch of students, and one student was the bully. He would go around stealing peoples money and the teacher was never around to stop him. So basically since other students were weaker than this bully they got taken advantage of and there was no authority figure to stop it.
Big red flags went up when I heard this. First off, when do grown adults act like adolescent students? He is assuming that in a state of no central authority everyone will act selfishly, or like children, without thinking of consequences like a normal grown person would do. That is simply not the case, and this is why he would not mention Locke, it would have undermined his whole lecture. He went on to talk about how there could be no property rights without state authority. Again, assuming that someone more powerful than you is just out there to steal your stuff, and that you won’t find ways to defend yourself, or band with neighbors to stop these acts of thievery. It is against human self-interest to act in stealing. You create to many enemies, it is to much work, and it is morally wrong. When I read the Declaration of Independence it said something about God-given natural rights of “Life , Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness”, and if you know your history it was really “Life, Liberty, and Property” and it came straight from who else? John Locke! The exact man he pretended did not exist. So, is he saying that our founders were wrong about this? That our rights come from governments? This notion is idiotic and wrong. I have my rights no matter what government existed, or if no government existed at all. At one point in his lecture he went on to describe a state of lawlessness in the Hurricane Katrina fiasco. What he did not mention was that people acted that way because nobody had a way to defend themselves! The government took all of their guns! This lack of logic goes back to his misunderstanding of the 2nd amendment.
Can you see why I am changing my major?
In Liberty,
Jon Lauro
I was clapping during this video. Amazing stuff! Glenn Beck at his best.
Haha, funny stuff. Enjoy:
The Difference between Democrats and Republicans
Written by Gary Halpin, with Illustrations by Chris Carter
“ This monumental work is designed to answer the most important question in the world: is it smarter to be a Democrat or a Republican? Are you overwhemled by the dueling progress and outstanding record of these two rival parties?
Now there’s a book that guides you in this monumental decision. Here it is, this amazing book, exhaustively researched and meticulously put together, reveals all the startling contrasts between the two parties. And the best part,
… it’s a very short read!…”
This country is the best on earth. A place where someone like me, has the opportunity to shape the life I want. Where the only thing holding me back is myself. I can be whatever I want. Now some may say that income holds me back, or education holds me back, or any other privilege that higher wealth brings. I would have to object to that. Only the extreme poor are the disadvantaged. Yes, not being rich and having all the connections will make the climb harder, but at least I can climb. Where I end up is totally up to me. No, this is not something a child only thinks, I believe this is true.
So what are my dreams? What do I want to accomplish in life? What are my goals? Well the goals are pretty gradual. Dreams are things I want to accomplish far in the distance, the ultimate meaning of life. Goals are the day to day tasks I wish to complete. My goals for now is to go to every class, and not be afraid to go and take the initiative on things. My goals will change as different things happen, such as getting a certain grade on a test which accumulates to getting a certain grade in a class and so on.
My dreams are different. My dreams are like Utopian visions of what things will be like. First of all graduating college would be a dream accomplished from long ago. To have a college degree would be amazing. I just need to keep focused and no matter how much I don’t want to do certain assignments or read, I have to. This begins to break down into goals. My dream of life after college is to have a nice job, a nice house, car, and what not. To nicely plant myself on the ground, so I can from that point get involved into politics and have a nice sum of money. I suppose after that would be a political career. I would love to run for Congress, to write books, and to argue for a constitutional government, free markets, and liberty. Much like I am doing now but with much more credibility.
Now for the Utopian part. I would love to be the beacon of freedom. To have rallies with thousands of people demanding less government in their lives. To spark an intellectual revolution much like Ron Paul did. I want to be the one to carry the flame of liberty into the next generation. I want to give speeches and receive standing ovations. I want to be known in the history books. I want to fight for freedom, and change peoples lives as mine has been changed. I want to be something so much bigger than me. A movement, an idea, a dream. What I want to be is everything I have dreamed of, the sky is the limit and my journey began long ago.
In Liberty,
Jon Lauro
So I have decided to change my major. I have also concluded that most of the teachers here on campus are liberal retards. They do not even understand their opposition. They think that plundering if backed by laws is OK. It makes me sick. I feel I can be a much more powerful voice if I were learn to use the pen as a weapon, not learning about how some dumb globalist, socialist countries are acting. So I have chosen to change my major to Professional Writing. So this way I can sharpen my writing skills and independently learn the truth. Plus, we all know that institutionalized education (especially politics and history) is the most bias form of education. So, that is it for today. Not much happened, I guess it is for the better.
Wow, Kane (The Wrestler) wrote an amazing article blasting a former Clinton cabinet member on his economic policies. I knew that Kane was a student of Austrian Economics and the Ron Paul platform in general, but man this guy is smart. He needs to run for office. (The next Jesse Ventura? (Who also supported Ron Paul!..same with Val Venis))
Robert Reich was Secretary of Labor under Bill Clinton and is currently a professor at the University of California, Berkeley’s Goldman School of Public Policy
Professor Reich:
I have some questions about some of the points that you brought up when you appeared on CNN’s The State of the Union show Superbowl Sunday. Although all my own training in economics is purely autodidactic, it seems to me that your arguments rest on faulty premises.
When asked what is the fastest way for the government to create jobs (a question which itself relies on the erroneous presumption that the government has the ability to “create” jobs), you replied with a three-part answer, and first stated that “almost all economists agree” with you.
Whether almost all economists agree or not of no importance, but gives your answer an air of authority. Unfortunately, it is the policies of these same economists which have caused the mess in which America currently finds itself. While “almost all economists” may still possess authority in academia, their credibility on Main Street is sorely lacking. In addition, many economists do not agree with you. In fact, Austrian economists vehemently disagree with you.
In any case, you said that the government’s first priority should be to expand the social safety net, which will cause money to go directly into circulation.
Historically, government welfare programs have been wasteful, inefficient, and corrupt. Private charities do a much better job of administering aid to those in need with the final goal of helping the unemployed get back to work. Government programs, on the other hand, lead to longer periods of unemployment by encouraging welfare recipients to remain on the dole as long as possible.
I am also curious as to how you propose to fund these programs. There are only three ways that the government can raise revenue: taxation, borrowing, and printing (both the latter are actually forms of deferred taxation). All of these methods have dire implications for the economy. Direct taxation retards economic growth by punishing producers. Borrowing crowds out investment in the private sector. Printing money causes distortions in the market, misallocation of resources, and eventually destroys the purchasing power of the monetary unit.
In addition, of what importance is “money in circulation”? You contend that passing money around will create jobs, but the fact is that passing money around is simply passing money around. What you seem to be proposing is that the government take money from some people, and then give it to people on welfare so that they can buy stuff from the same people that the government originally took the money from in the first place. How is that going to create jobs? Why not allow the people with money to invest it and build their businesses so that they can hire the people to whom the government is planning on giving their money?…
Here is Kane’s Blog, where he is known as “Citizen X”
