Obama's Latest Campaign Against Liberty: Net Neutrality is Back

The Los Angeles Times reports that following the elections, Obama has

"...called for "bright lines" to keep networks neutral: no blocking of legal services, no slowing of data speeds for certain users, no paid priority treatment and increased transparency." 

In other words, he wants to state to butt into the details of private business even further (because enough is never enough). He wants to take away choices for consumers and business; he doesn't want there to be the possibility for consumers to pay more for services they need more than other consumers.

Further down in the new article, we find these supportive comments from Netflix, one of the companies that would plainly benefit from "net neutrality" because, well, streaming movies costs more than most other online activities:

"We agree with President Barack Obama: Consumers should pick winners and losers on the Internet, not broadband gatekeepers," 

You'd think a company like Netflix would put more thought into their propaganda. Consumers pick all winners and losers, including internet companies. Degrading private property takes control out of the hands of consumers and puts it into the hands of the few: the state and special interest groups feeding off it's power.

The corporatist "mixed-economy" of modern America enables big business to capture more of the market than they otherwise would. If we're concerned about too few network providers, the solution is abolishing government regulations, not adding more.

Environmentalist Professor Attacks Free Speech

Lawrence Torcello recently penned a controversial article for theconverstion.com, titled "Is misinformation about the climate criminally negligent?" He argues yes, and I was curious to see how he would justify what seemed like a attack on freedom of speech. Here it goes:

"We have good reason to consider the funding of climate denial to be criminally and morally negligent. The charge of criminal and moral negligence ought to extend to all activities of the climate deniers who receive funding as part of a sustained campaign to undermine the public’s understanding of scientific consensus.  

Criminal negligence is normally understood to result from failures to avoid reasonably foreseeable harms, or the threat of harms to public safety, consequent of certain activities. Those funding climate denial campaigns can reasonably predict the public’s diminished ability to respond to climate change as a result of their behaviour. Indeed, public uncertainty regarding climate science, and the resulting failure to respond to climate change, is the intentional aim of politically and financially motivated denialists."

In other words, Torcello wants to criminalize certain speech that he believes is influencing people to make bad choices. This is a complete rejection of free speech: the same charge can be levied against a million other ideas, some of which are undoubtedly causing much greater harm.

Perhaps ironically, Torcello denies that he is discarding free speech:

My argument probably raises an understandable, if misguided, concern regarding free speech. We must make the critical distinction between the protected voicing of one’s unpopular beliefs, and the funding of a strategically organised campaign to undermine the public’s ability to develop and voice informed opinions. Protecting the latter as a form of free speech stretches the definition of free speech to a degree that undermines the very concept.

"Beliefs" and "opinions" are synonyms, so it's impossible to see a distinction here. His same arguments can be used against all other "unpopular", "uniformed", or "controversial" speech; what he advocates, then, undermines and abolishes the very concept of free speech.

Fortunately, Torcello is not going to get anywhere with his bizarre attack on free speech, which will probably do nothing but give fodder to the very people he wants to shut up. If we are going to start criminalizing speech, how about we start with Torcello and his statist allies. I jest; free speech extends even to those foolish enough to call for its end.

It's Never too Late to Repeal Obamacare, Or Anything Else

Government legislation and programs become entrenched with the passage of time. It is far easier to nip it in the bud rather than come back at a later time to dismantle it. Some are starting to argue this time is coming, and may already be here, for the monstrosity called Obamacare. But it's never too late, though, and Dom Armentano reminds us of one such occasion, when the SCOTUS struck down the National Industrial Recovery Act (NRA).

His point is valid, though I think a better historical comparison would be the abolition of chattel slavery- a long standing institution that, over a period of time, was undermined and entirely abolished through a lengthy education process that eventually enlightened the whole population.

If you want to see Obamacare gone- as well as a host of other burdensome government interventions and programs, from Social Security to the minimum wage, or perhaps militarism or the drug war, or all of it- it's not going to come by petitioning Congress or getting the right politicians or party elected. (Should Republicans actually repeal it- which I don't believe they ever will, they will replace it with something similarly bad.) It's going to come by changing the minds of the people. And it's never to late to do that. Rest assured we're going to get rid of Obamacare, Medicare, Social Security, and the rest of the drags on society, and sooner the more people focus their efforts toward proper education of the masses.

Is There Such a Thing as a Good Cop?

Perhaps relative to other cops, yes, but in general there are no "good cops", as Eric Peters explains. They all violate the non-aggression principle when they enforce unlibertarian laws, which is most of the time they are on the beat.

Move Review: "Terms and Conditions May Apply"

I just viewed the movie "Terms and Conditions May Apply". While it doesn't seem to be a film produced by libertarians, it does a decent job highlighting how extensive the collection, permanent storage, and use of information about us has become. And it is alarming, even to those of us who were quite aware of the situation: nothing - nothing - you share online is really private. No matter how long you have known this, it remains a stunning fact.

A large amount of this information sharing is something we agree to without fully realizing it. This, of course, does not violate libertarianism; we just sign contracts without reading them. Dumb, but not illegal. (I might add, a lot of this legalese garbage is only required because of a vast number of absurd, anti-libertarian lawsuits that are allowed in today's society). Of course, I do not argue that all information should be private. 100% privacy and 0% privacy would both be unnecessary, impractical, and destructive. It should be up to the individual to strike the right balance. Unfortunately, many people- due to ignorance and/or laziness- are not making these decisions for themselves as they should, and end up giving businesses vast quantities of data under conditions that allow it to be used differently than they would expect. It's good to see efforts to educate others about the situation as this film does.

I do not agree that "privacy legislation" is the solution to businesses collecting, storing, and sharing our data, as this film seems to suggest at a few points. First of all, it's impossible to believe any legislation coming out of Washington D.C. would actually restrict data collection, storage, and sharing valued so highly by politicians and large corporations (which donate to politicians). Secondly, it's not a legitimate role of the state, and would be unconstitutional, for the government to control the contracts people make with businesses about their data.

The other entity collecting, storing, and using our info is the government. As noted at the end of the film, the Snowden leaks have revealed a trove of additional details about what’s really going on, but there is still a lot we don’t know. However, we know enough to say there’s a gigantic surveillance state that fundamentally violates the 4th Amendment. While government does directly collect information about us, most of the time it does so indirectly, by forcing businesses like Verizon, Google, or Facebook to turn over data. Shamefully, there has been little resistance to this by corporations.

Governments possessing our private information are a much greater concern than business possessing it. Businesses cannot obtain your information by force; you have to give it to them. Business cannot use the information for much more than improving marketing, which is actually a good thing (if we are going to see an advertisement, its better if it provides us with useful information). Governments, on the other hand, can abuse the information (inadvertently or not) and do anything with it, including entering your home, detaining you, and throwing you in jail, or worse.

The film takes on the common argument "if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide". It also provides the correct answer, that's garbage nobody really believes and puts to practice. (Next time someone offers that argument, see if he is willing to turn over all his passwords, keys, etc. or have cameras installed in his home.) There are plenty of activities that are not wrong yet may need to remain private. Humans act different- self-censoring- when they are being watched, and the end of the film brilliantly demonstrates this, when the crew meets Mark Zuckerberg, who asks to not be recorded and then acts differently when the cameras are "turned off".

It may be possible for all this to change, but all the powerful business and governmental interests are lined up behind the status quo, meaning the only hope is changing the minds of millions of Americans. It is hard to see a widespread recognition of the value of privacy trump the lazy convenience of going with the flow. Whatever happens, all we can do now is be prudent with what we share, knowing that whatever we post online or do in public view is likely recorded, analyzed, and permanently stored by someone else.

Some "Free Country": Why is it Illegal to Trade with an Employer?

One of the most basic components of liberty is freedom of trade. Yet in this "free country", it's illegal for me to make numerous trades with an employer. Back in the days when I was young and unskilled with no work history, I looked for months before I could find someone willing to hire me. There was plenty of work to be done at hundreds of businesses around me, but I wasn't allowed to do it and build the skills and reputation needed to start climbing the ladder. All because I wasn't productive enough, or at least could not prove that with a work history.

Why wasn't I productive "enough"? I was productive- just about anyone can do hundreds of basic jobs with no significant training costs. But I wasn't productive enough because there was a barrier that neither I nor my potential employers had any control over. I had to be worth a specific amount of money per hour- something north of $8 once all employer costs are counted. Sounds bizarre, arbitrary, and unjust, right? It is, and it is called the minimum wage. And it's still outlawing jobs today, and many people that want to raise this barrier even higher. Worse, they actually think they are being helpful and caring.

But the minimum wage doesn't increase anyone's productivity. It only outlaws the employment of anyone who doesn't have the ability to produce whatever arbitrary value is set by the state. As a result, those people, which I was one of, earn a wage of $0.00. They miss out on an income, the chance to build their skills, and establish a work record; and our economy loses out on their production and is that much poorer as a result.

Though I eventually made it past that barrier, I continue to face others just as arbitrary and unjust. Where I'm currently employed there is no shortage of work to be done, and by supervisors are very happy with my productivity. Meanwhile, my budget is tight and I'd be happy to trade additional hours of labor to increase my income. It's another trade that benefits both of us, but it's illegal.

The same federal legislation that started the minimum wage barrier is also outlawing other trades. I can't work more than 40 hours a week without my employer being forced to pay an "overtime" rate of 150%. They can't afford to do this right now, so I do not have the opportunity to easily increase my income and they do not have the opportunity to benefit from the extra labor of an experienced employee.

As a result, I and many others in my shoes are forced to look for a secondary job elsewhere to get the same number of hours per week (say, 60) without overtime pay rates. Overtime pay law does not actually give us extra pay, it only instead limits choices for workers like me. Choices I would certainly make- just consider the extra costs I face by working for two employers instead of one. Upfront, I'll have to hunt for the job, interview, deal with training; and then daily face an extra commute and uniform changes, all while balancing the schedules between the two. The math quickly becomes clear: I'd be much better off doing over 40 hours with just my current employer - but once again people that think they are helping workers are just making life a whole lot harder for them.

If you're the average reader, you're supportive of the web of regulations in place today, including minimum wage and overtime pay. Do you realize the harm you are causing with these policies you support, which limit choices for employees, reduces our productivity (and thus the whole economy's), and violates our most basic liberties such as freedom to trade? How can you possibly justify this? Let us make our own choices, and you make your own. Everyday issues like these is why I am a libertarian, the only ethically, economically, logically sound political philosophy I can find.

Libertarianism Would Have Saved Trayvon Martin's Life

Putting libertarianism to practice would have prevented the death of Trayvon Martin, as Robert Wenzel notes in an excellent post (he also has a follow-up). Obviously, there was an aggressor in the altercation. Many people are convinced it was Geroge Zimmerman, but such could not be proven. Rather, from my casual observation, just about all the evidence seems to line up with Geroge's story-line. And that means Trayvon Martin was, as best we can tell, the aggressor.

Far to many don't even seem able to acknowledge this a possibility, no doubt because of a strange campaign that portrayed Trayvon as an innocent kid merely trying to walk home with iced tea and a bag of Skittles, only to be killed by a racist wanna-be cop. Yet even if George was the aggressor, unlikely as that is, libertarianism would have prevented needless death and injuries.

Why? Because libertarianism is non-aggression, exactly the principle that someone violated that unfortunate night. That's why I find libertarianism such a meaningful and pressing issue: tragic events like this are happening all the time because people as individuals or groups, including and especially governments, are committing acts of aggression. Humans will never cease all aggression - that is a utopian dream - but I know improvements are possible, particularly in reducing institutionalized aggression (the government).

Let our energies in reaction to this case be channeled towards decreasing aggression, not increasing it, as many are wont to do.

Government Doesn't Like it When You Know the Rules

Here's a new video from this past July 4th (a belated happy Secession Day, btw!). It's always nice to see people asserting their rights like this. Unfortunately, most of us do not know the "law" well enough and frequently waive our rights without realizing it. Note the police admits the driver's innocence as he continues his illegal search - after which he finds the camera.

Here's another classic - the government is again caught trying to pry far beyond what its own law says it can do. We need more of this educated resistance. Each state needs organizations to help citizens understand their rights under the arbitrary "laws" of their area. If enough of us know the basics and assert our rights, this routine abuse can be greatly curtailed.

John Stossel is Right and Wrong on NSA Spying: Can I Convince Him?

It made my day to get a direct response on Twitter from none other than John Stossel of Fox News:

Background: Stossel has stated his view many times, including in these two Reason articles (here, here). I think this summarizes his argument best:

“So it's invasive, probably illegal and maybe useless. I ought to be very angry. But I'm not. Why? 

I need to keep thinking about this issue, but for now, two reasons: 

1. Terrorists do want to murder us. If the NSA is halfway competent, Big Data should help detect plots.
2. My electronic privacy has already been utterly shredded by Google, Amazon, YouTube and so on. 

They know with whom I talk, what interests me and how much time I spend doing this or that. They creep me out with targeted ads. How did they know I want that?! Oh, right ... I spent an hour searching ... 

Then I go outside in New York City, where 16 cameras record me on my way to work.
Greedy lawyers can subpoena my private records. My employer has a right to read my emails. 

My privacy is already blown. 

I'm angrier about other things Big Government does in the name of keeping me safe: forcing me to wear safety gear, limiting where I may go, stripping me at airports, forcing me to pay $2,300 for more military than we need.”

For a libertarian, Stossel’s take on the NSA spying is mind-boggling at first glance, but he does have a point. There’s a hundred other things to be angry about, and more. Some which have been around a long time, unlike the news of NSA spying. Naturally we are focused on that topic while it’s hot, and for good reason, strategically: now is the time to nip it in the bud, before it becomes entrenched policy like the 100 other things in John Stossel’s list.

Stossel is not wrong to prefer certain freedoms over others. We all have our own preferences. For a famous media figure, privacy is largely "blown", in exchange for the other rewards that come with your work. That’s fine… but what about the rest of us? Not all of us make that choice. And it is our right to do so, as much as any other right.

Stossel argues that private companies have a lot of our data. But surely the difference is glaring. We gave these private companies our information. The NSA, on the other hand, takes it by force.

What about the terrorists? I say, what about the 4th amendment? We are not going to give that up, are we, John?

Stossel is a spokesman for the cause of liberty. We’re disappointed because he doesn't seem interested in defending a right he personally doesn't find important. We don't ask that he change his own preferences, but merely that he defend all of our freedoms. Likewise, there are freedoms I would not find personally important- such as the freedom to smoke marijuana- but I will vigorously oppose the drug war because it is right to do so and because it has negative consequences on me (e.g. higher tax and crime rates). There's also negative consequences from NSA spying: higher taxes, people refraining from exercising their rights because the government is watching their data, etc.

I hope you're on the way to being convinced, Mr. Stossel.  If not, what is wrong with our rebuttal? Now is the perfect time to defend privacy, while momentum is on our side. Please join us!

A "Progressive's" Anti-Progressive Argument Against Liberty

Michael Lind of Salon.com thinks he has us stumped. " If your approach is so great, why hasn’t any country anywhere in the world ever tried it?"

I really liked Tom Wood's response, as well as Bob Murphy's brief note. Here's what I have to add: this  attack is supposedly from a "progressive" author and website. The irony is palpable, then, to see them use such an anti-progressive line of argumentation: If x hasn't been tried, it must not be that great.

Rand Paul, the Apple Who Fell Far from the Tree

Rand Paul is becoming less like his father every day, it seems. His obvious desire for higher office is technically not a problem, if he goes about it the right way. Unfortunately, he is moving toward the middle instead of trying to move the middle toward him. This undermines his effectiveness, and at some point he becomes no better than any other Republican. I don’t think we are there yet, but it’s frightening that we seem headed in that direction.

This Washington Post article highlights Rand’s latest moves. He is meeting with evangelical leaders, who are often very confused about liberty, as are most Republicans and Democrats. One that he met with stated “Straight libertarianism has nothing Christian about it.” Such ignorance is palpable. Libertarianism is non-aggression, a key teaching in the Bible. Rand Paul has the opportunity to explain this and how it relates to government. He also has the chance to explain how the Constitution does not provide for federal power over many issues evangelicals are concerned about, including marriage and the drug war. These are very reasonable, moderate, and consistent arguments that would do the cause of liberty much good.

But what is Rand advocating? To his credit, he still thinks marriage is a state issue, but I don’t see him laying out the Constitutional reasons for this. Unfortunately, on the drug war, he wants to continue it but try and reduce some of the penalties. That’s nice, but that is not a defense of liberty. It’s support for a failed, rights-violating, unconstitutional, and moronic drug prohibition.

We are going to need people who actually support liberty to make the changes we want. Rand Paul is not laying the foundation for a Presidential run based on liberty. He is more likely, as Bob Wenzel points out, to end up being the next Ronald Reagan, one who often talks nice but doesn't stop or reverse the growth of the state.

An Alternative to Politics: Agree to Disagree

To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical. ~Thomas Jefferson

In my last two posts, I asked 1). how Republicans, given their long record, are better than Democrats, and then 2). briefly explained why I consider Democrats to be completely delusional and destructive. I concluded with a proposal to solve our irreconcilable political differences:

“we should just agree to disagree. Don’t force your ideas on us through the government. Do what you want to yourselves, and leave the rest of us alone”

Opposing agendas cannot be forced on the same region at the same time, much as one cannot move in opposite directions simultaneously. When people compete via democracy to use the government to impose agendas on others, there will be some who are forced to live under an agenda they may largely or entirely oppose.

Our differences are irreconcilable and substantial- we’re talking about completely different rules for society, not a few small quibbles. And that’s why the only solution is agreeing to disagree. You do things your way, and I’ll do things my way. We’ll not try to force our agenda on each other. This is the civilized, moral way to deal with conflicts we cannot resolve.

Of course, this is not a solution in dealing with crime (e.g. theft). Force is required to deal with acts of aggression. But all other issues should be subject to agreeing to disagree when we can’t agree.

How can we begin doing this? Presently, most of us are trying to impose our agenda on others, through the government, on millions of people, rather than a more local area. Whenever a “national” agenda is legislated by the federal government, it’s being imposed on hundreds of millions of people over a vast area of millions of square miles.

Therefore, one way we can begin agreeing to disagree is to restore a federal system of government as the Constitution originally gave us. Issues that have been dealt with at the “national” level can go back to more local regions. Of course, we should not stop with our decentralization there. Further localization is surely desirable, right down to the individual level.

Take the New York “soda ban” for example. I believe this is extremely stupid policy, and a violation of the rights of anyone living there. I would advocate decentralization, allow individuals or restaurants to decide whether to ban sodas for themselves, i.e. repeal the soda ban. But look on the positive side; though it’s not much of one for New Yorkers: the soda ban is not being imposed on the rest of the state, let alone the whole country. So at least we have a partial case of agreeing to disagree.

Our differences are much greater than a soda ban. As I said, we envision completely different rules for society, because of our fundamentally different understandings of economics and individual rights. Ignoring this and attempting to bind everyone under centralized political control is a recipe for friction, irrationality, and mass injustice. Let’s work to take issues out of politics and deal with them between each other, agreeing to disagree when that isn’t possible.

Gun Control Shot Down

Unfortunately, these days liberty does not score many victories, but there are exceptions. One of the most organized attacks by the gun controllers in the last twenty years was repelled in a Senate vote last night.

It’s hard to overstate how thoroughly they were defeated. Their campaign was revived when they decided take advantage of the tragedy in Newtown, but it took over a month before the new Congress was settled in and the President decided on his goals. Attempts to renew “assault weapons” bans were ditched when it became clear that the votes were not there. And now, after five months of work, the rest of their agenda was given a kick to the curb, with the help of several Democrats and most Republicans. Even if the Democrat-controlled Senate had passed it, the bill would have been DOA in the House.

They cannot be allowed the slightest victory. Give them an inch and they will take a mile. They don’t have the support to pass their agenda now, but they will keep trying. So we must keep fighting, and not just on the defensive. Liberty has lost much territory to gun controllers and the rest of the statist agenda. It’s not enough to defend what’s left, we need to actually go on the offensive and recapture what has been lost – stolen – from us. That means repealing gun control that is in place now, at all levels of government.

We will always have guns, and unfortunately, human nature is such that murder will always be a problem. It's unfortunate that gun controllers want to disarm the innocent and embolden criminals. The solution is not more guns, though that's what gun controllers ironically bring about, by threatening to make future gun purchases more expensive. The solution may be called "more gun rights", though it is better understood as follows: Respect the natural right to both own property (including guns) and use it however you like, provided you don't violate other's rights. When our rights are respected the cost of committing a crime increases, as the criminal cannot know who is packing heat and the people do not fear legal trouble for merely exercising their rights. When our rights are not respected the criminal gets the advantage, as he ignores the government's decrees and thus is not constrained by them as much as the rest of us.

It's embarrassing that gun controllers, despite some good intentions, are actually helping the criminals and hurting everyone else. That's why they must be defeated. Liberty is the only sensible idea, once again.

What Does the Sequester Hysteria Say About America?

The “Sequester” slightly reduces the rate of government growth, and took affect March 1st. There are no real cuts, but you couldn't tell from all the hysteria from the political class (including the mainstream media). Here are a few observations on the whole situation:

1. The political class is committed to maintaining and increasing their power, and will make themselves look like fools to avoid any roadblocks to this, no matter how minor or necessary they are. Exhibit A is the President himself, who said he would veto Congressional attempt to dodge thedeal that help prevent additional downgrade to the U.S. credit rating. When time came to make good on his promise, he led the charge to kick the can downthe road again.
2. There is no substantial, organized opposition to lead the charge for sanity. Only a few individual politicians are committed to actually cutting spending. This is a symptom of the real disease: the people’s ideology. Most Americans don’t care, are ignorant, and show little capacity to think long term. This is the core problem we must address- completely reshaping the average mind via education. We’re not going to trick anyone into supporting liberty. There’s no shortcut. Ron Paul Republicans should not try the slippery slope of compromise to get power, they should do as Rothbard noted, uphold the ultimategoal of liberty and act consistent with it. That’s how Ron Paul made a difference and changed so many minds. We have to build on that with the same strategy.
3. It’s pretty clear that Americans will behave recklessly, driving up debt and inflation until they reach market imposed ceilings. TheReal Crash is coming and we had better get ready for the fallout. We also need to be ready for educational opportunities it will bring, which means working on our own education in economics and liberty. 

40 Years of Abortion

Today marks the 40th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade. Since that time, tens of millions of unborn children have been “legally” killed. This is a great travesty. Notice how the unborn have been dehumanized. This has always been the case throughout history to justify brutal treatment of whole classes of people. We look back with horror at this, yet, it is still in our midst.

How can I, an advocate of liberty, demand abortion be outlawed? Shouldn't I defend the right of women to do what they want with their own bodies? Abortion is, as I see it, murder. Libertarians never call for the freedom to do anything; we always place a condition on it: that the rights of others be not violated. Abortion violates the child’s right to life.

Most people agree parents don’t have a right to kill their young child, whether they be in the third trimester or already born. But some people draw the line at some point during the pregnancy. This is a completely arbitrary standard. The only non-arbitrary standard is conception.

That we have gone forty years with abortion on demand calls for real soul searching by the pro-life movement. Why haven’t we been successful? I would suggest, for one thing, our strategy is wrong. Under the Constitution, this is not a national issue. Ron Paul took the correct position during his campaign. He would get the federal government out of the abortion issue. That would free up many states to hopefully do the right thing and outlaw abortion.

It would be better to save lives in some states, instead of abortion continuing in all states while we wait many years hoping the SCOTUS will force everyone to change. Unfortunately, the best we can expect is a gradual change, because too many people don’t properly value human life and their minds must be changed. As with slavery, a “thirteenth” amendment outlawing abortion could be considered down the road when enough support was there, should that be necessary.

Republicans held complete control of the federal government during certain periods of the past forty years. It is to their eternal shame that they failed to make any serious efforts to curb abortion. Pro-lifers need to ask themselves some hard questions about their reflexive support for the GOP, given that forty years later we haven't gotten anywhere.

Let’s hope we don’t have to mark many more of these horrific anniversaries.

The Fiscal Cliff Deal Was Another Anti-Liberty Deal

All the hoopla and confusion known as the “fiscal cliff” and the so called deal that averted was the latest battle the cause of liberty lost. Bob Murphy summarizes the math in a recent article for the Institute for Energy Research.

What Was the Fiscal Cliff?

Taxes were going to soar by $478 billion but spending would remain nearly unchanged, falling by just $9 billion. Compare these to the 2012 federal budget of $3,563 billion and tax receipts of $2,435 billion.

Despite the wild imbalance between spending cuts and tax increases, both were treated as equally draconian. In Washington’s eyes, cutting spending by a quarter of a percent is terrifying, even though they typically will increase spending by many times that amount every year.

For those who want liberty and prosperity, this is completely backwards. Increasing taxes is increasing waste, while reducing government spending is cutting waste.

A Deal for Us or Them?

Now taxes will go up $198 billion and spending will increase by $41 billion. And the deficit will still be $971 billion.

This is what Democrats call a “balanced” deal. I guess this does look balanced when you start with such an imbalanced perspective. As far as Republicans, they once again proved their worthlessness, as Murphy writes on his blog:

[T]hink back, everybody, to when those fiscally conservative Republicans OH SO RELUCTANTLY gave in on the debt ceiling hike, back in 2011. Remember all that drama, everyone? When the credit rating got reduced? Here’s Boehner back then:

“An increase in the debt limit without major spending cuts will hurt our economy and destroy jobs,” Boehner said in a statement. “A credible agreement means the spending cuts must exceed the debt-limit increase.”

As I pointed out at the time, the Republicans clamoring for a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget, etc. are just putting on a show. All they had to do was not raise the debt ceiling and we would have automatically had a balanced budget requirement.

Instead, they went along with raising the ceiling, but put in place a committee–why, a super committee–to give all sorts of expert recommendations, and if those wily Democrats didn’t listen, why, there would be massive, draconian, across-the-board spending cuts…

…which they just avoided, by simply voting not to implement them. (And remember, the cuts would have meant a $9 billion reduction in federal spending in 2013.)

Yet I expect the Tea Party to keep voting Republican, and keep being ineffective towards their alleged goals of shrinking government.

David Henderson points out, however, that the deal prevented some tax issues from getting even worse. While I appreciate this reminder, it’s quite a leap for him to conclude the anti-tax side won. Remember, taxes went up. The other side just didn't win everything they wanted.

A number of special interest groups got special tax breaks, too. The tax code is now more complex, and the rates went up. Just the opposite of the “lower rates for less loopholes” talk we heard early on.

So, in short, this was a deal for them, the government and some special interests; but for us, we were screwed again. And we would have been screwed either way, because that’s what statism is all about.

It would be very difficult to have any optimism at all if it were not for the Ron Paul movement. Even so, there is no reason for optimism in the short run. We need to double down and invest all the more in education of ourselves and others so that we someday have the numbers to put a stop to the insanity that no one else is stopping.