Monday, May 13, 2013
send em a coupla bux awready
Antiwar.com debunks the lies as soon as they're uttered – that's our job. The War Party is doing its damnedest to drag us into yet another war in the Middle East – but Antiwar.com is right there, refuting their war propaganda 24/7. But we can't do it without your help. Please make your tax-deductible donation today.
Saturday, May 4, 2013
From the Vicar of Wakefield
Oliver Goldsmith, Chap. XIX, pg. 197
"The defcription of a perfon difcontented with the prefent government, and apprehenfive of the lofs of our liberties."
"...Liberty, Sir, liberty is the Briton's boast, and by all my coal mines in Cornwall, I reverence its guardians [political publications]."
"Then it is to be hoped," cried I, "you reverence the king."
"Yes," returned my entertainer, "when he does what we would have him; but if he goes on as he has done of late, I'll never trouble myself more with his matters. I say nothing. I think only. I could have directed some things better. I don't think there has been a sufficient number of advisors; he should advise with every person willing to give him advice, and then we should have things done in another manner."
"I wish," cried I, "that such intruding advisers were fixed in the pillory. It should be the duty of honest men to assist the weaker side of our constitution, that sacred power that has for some years been every day declining, and losing its due share of influence in the state. But these ignorants still continue the cry of liberty, and if they have any weight basely throw it into the subsiding scale."
"How," cried one of the ladies, "do I live to see one so base, so sordid, as to be an enemy of liberty, and a defender of tyrants? Liberty, that sacred gift of heaven, that glorious privilege of Britons!"
"Can it be possible," cried our entertainer, "that there should be any found at present advocates for slavery? Any who are meanly giving up the privileges of Britons? Can any, Sir, be so abject?"
"No, sir," replied I, "I am for liberty, that attribute of Gods! Glorious liberty! that theme of modern declamation. I would have all men kings. I would be a king myself We have all naturally an equal right to the throne; we are all originally equal. This is my opinion, and was once the opinion of a set of honest men who were called Levellers. They tried to to erect themselves into a community, where all should be equally free. But, alas! it would never answer; for there were some among them stronger, and some more cunning than others, and these became masters of the rest; for as sure as your groom rides your horses, because he is a cunninger animal than they, so surely will the animal that is cunninger or stronger than he, sit upon his shoulders in turn. Since then it is entailed upon humanity to submit, and some are born to command, and others to obey, the question is, as there must be be tyrants, whether it is better to have them in the same house with us, or in the same village, or still farther off, in the metropolis. Now, Sir, for my own part, as I naturally hate the face of the tyrant, the farther off he is removed from me the better pleased am I. The generality of mankind also are of my way of thinking, and unanimously created one king, whose election at once diminishes the number of tyrants, and puts tyranny at the greatest distance from the greatest number of people.
Now those who were tyrants themselves before the election of one tyrant, are naturally averse to a power raised over them, and whole weight must ever lean heaviest on the subordinate orders. It is in the interest of the great, therefore, to diminish kingly power as much as possible, because whatever they take from it is naturally restored to themselves; and all they have to do in a state is to undermine a single tyrant, by which they resume their primaeval authority. Now a state may be so constitutionally circumstanced, its laws may be so disposed, and its men of opulence so minded, as all to conspire to carry on this business of undermining monarchy. If the circumstances of the state be such, for instance, as to favor the accumulation of wealth, and make the opulent still more rich, this will encrease their strength and their ambition. But an accumulation of wealth must necessarily be the consequence in a state when more riches flow in from external commerce, than arise from internal industry; for external commerce can only be managed to advantage by the rich, and they have also at the same time all the emoluments arising from internal industry; so that the rich, in such a state, have two sources of wealth, whereas the poor have but one. Thus wealth in all commercial states is found to accumulate, and such have hitherto in time become aristocratical. Besides this, the very laws of a country may contribute to the accumulation of wealth; as when those natural ties that bind the rich and the poor together are broken, and it is ordained that the rich shall only marry among each other; or when the learned are held unqualified to serve their country as counsellors merely from a defect of opulence, and wealth is thus made the object of a wise man's ambition; by these means I say, and such means as these, riches will accumulate. The possessor of accumulated wealth, when furnished with the necessaries and pleasures of life, can employ the superfluity of fortune only in purchasing power. That is differently speaking, in making dependants, in purchasing the liberty of the needy or the venal, of men who are willing to bear the mortification of contiguous tyranny for bread. Thus each very opulent man generally gathers round him a circle of the poorest of the people; and the polity abounding in accumulate wealth, may be compared to a Cartesian system, each orb with a vortex of its own. Those, however, who are willing to move in a great man's vortex, are only such as must be slaves, the rabble of mankind, whose souls and whose education are adapted to servitude, and who know nothing of liberty except the name. But there must still be a large number of the people without the sphere of the opulent man's influence, namely, that order of men which subsists between the very rich and the very rabble; those men who are possest of too large fortunes to submit to the neighboring man in power, and yet are too poor to set up for tyranny themselves. In this middle order of mankind are generally to be found all the arts, wisdom, and virtues of society. This order alone is known to be the true preserver of freedom, and may be called the People.
Now it may happen that this middle order of mankind may lose all its influence in a state, and its voice be in a manner drowned in that of the rabble; for if the fortune sufficient for qualifying a person at present to give his voice in state affairs, be ten times less than was judged sufficient upon forming the constitution, it is evident that greater numbers of the rabble will be introduced into the political system, and they ever moving in the vortex of the great, will follow where greatness shall direct. In such a state, therefore, all that the middle order has left, is to preserve the prerogative and privileges of the one principal tyrant with the most sacred circumspection. For he divides the power of the rich, and calls off the great from falling with tenfold weight on the middle order placed beneath them. The middle order may be compared to a town of which the opulent are forming a siege, and which the tyrant is is hastening to relieve. While the besiegers are in dread of the external enemy, it is but natural to offer the townsmen the most specious terms; to flatter them with sounds, and amuse them with privileges: but if they once defeat the tyrant, the walls of the town will be but a small defence to its inhabitants. What they may expect, may be seen by turning our eyes to Holland, Genoa, or Venice, where the laws govern the poor, and the rich govern the law. I am then for, and would die for, monarchy, sacred monarchy; for if there be anything sacred amongst men, it must be the the anointed sovereign of his people, and every diminution of his power in war, or in peace, is an infringement upon the real liberties of the subject. The sounds of liberty, patriotism, and Britons, have already done much, it is to be hoped that the true sons of freedom will prevent their ever doing more. I have known many of those bold champions of liberty in my time, yet do I not remember one that was not in his heart and in his family a tyrant."
"The defcription of a perfon difcontented with the prefent government, and apprehenfive of the lofs of our liberties."
"...Liberty, Sir, liberty is the Briton's boast, and by all my coal mines in Cornwall, I reverence its guardians [political publications]."
"Then it is to be hoped," cried I, "you reverence the king."
"Yes," returned my entertainer, "when he does what we would have him; but if he goes on as he has done of late, I'll never trouble myself more with his matters. I say nothing. I think only. I could have directed some things better. I don't think there has been a sufficient number of advisors; he should advise with every person willing to give him advice, and then we should have things done in another manner."
"I wish," cried I, "that such intruding advisers were fixed in the pillory. It should be the duty of honest men to assist the weaker side of our constitution, that sacred power that has for some years been every day declining, and losing its due share of influence in the state. But these ignorants still continue the cry of liberty, and if they have any weight basely throw it into the subsiding scale."
"How," cried one of the ladies, "do I live to see one so base, so sordid, as to be an enemy of liberty, and a defender of tyrants? Liberty, that sacred gift of heaven, that glorious privilege of Britons!"
"Can it be possible," cried our entertainer, "that there should be any found at present advocates for slavery? Any who are meanly giving up the privileges of Britons? Can any, Sir, be so abject?"
"No, sir," replied I, "I am for liberty, that attribute of Gods! Glorious liberty! that theme of modern declamation. I would have all men kings. I would be a king myself We have all naturally an equal right to the throne; we are all originally equal. This is my opinion, and was once the opinion of a set of honest men who were called Levellers. They tried to to erect themselves into a community, where all should be equally free. But, alas! it would never answer; for there were some among them stronger, and some more cunning than others, and these became masters of the rest; for as sure as your groom rides your horses, because he is a cunninger animal than they, so surely will the animal that is cunninger or stronger than he, sit upon his shoulders in turn. Since then it is entailed upon humanity to submit, and some are born to command, and others to obey, the question is, as there must be be tyrants, whether it is better to have them in the same house with us, or in the same village, or still farther off, in the metropolis. Now, Sir, for my own part, as I naturally hate the face of the tyrant, the farther off he is removed from me the better pleased am I. The generality of mankind also are of my way of thinking, and unanimously created one king, whose election at once diminishes the number of tyrants, and puts tyranny at the greatest distance from the greatest number of people.
Now those who were tyrants themselves before the election of one tyrant, are naturally averse to a power raised over them, and whole weight must ever lean heaviest on the subordinate orders. It is in the interest of the great, therefore, to diminish kingly power as much as possible, because whatever they take from it is naturally restored to themselves; and all they have to do in a state is to undermine a single tyrant, by which they resume their primaeval authority. Now a state may be so constitutionally circumstanced, its laws may be so disposed, and its men of opulence so minded, as all to conspire to carry on this business of undermining monarchy. If the circumstances of the state be such, for instance, as to favor the accumulation of wealth, and make the opulent still more rich, this will encrease their strength and their ambition. But an accumulation of wealth must necessarily be the consequence in a state when more riches flow in from external commerce, than arise from internal industry; for external commerce can only be managed to advantage by the rich, and they have also at the same time all the emoluments arising from internal industry; so that the rich, in such a state, have two sources of wealth, whereas the poor have but one. Thus wealth in all commercial states is found to accumulate, and such have hitherto in time become aristocratical. Besides this, the very laws of a country may contribute to the accumulation of wealth; as when those natural ties that bind the rich and the poor together are broken, and it is ordained that the rich shall only marry among each other; or when the learned are held unqualified to serve their country as counsellors merely from a defect of opulence, and wealth is thus made the object of a wise man's ambition; by these means I say, and such means as these, riches will accumulate. The possessor of accumulated wealth, when furnished with the necessaries and pleasures of life, can employ the superfluity of fortune only in purchasing power. That is differently speaking, in making dependants, in purchasing the liberty of the needy or the venal, of men who are willing to bear the mortification of contiguous tyranny for bread. Thus each very opulent man generally gathers round him a circle of the poorest of the people; and the polity abounding in accumulate wealth, may be compared to a Cartesian system, each orb with a vortex of its own. Those, however, who are willing to move in a great man's vortex, are only such as must be slaves, the rabble of mankind, whose souls and whose education are adapted to servitude, and who know nothing of liberty except the name. But there must still be a large number of the people without the sphere of the opulent man's influence, namely, that order of men which subsists between the very rich and the very rabble; those men who are possest of too large fortunes to submit to the neighboring man in power, and yet are too poor to set up for tyranny themselves. In this middle order of mankind are generally to be found all the arts, wisdom, and virtues of society. This order alone is known to be the true preserver of freedom, and may be called the People.
Now it may happen that this middle order of mankind may lose all its influence in a state, and its voice be in a manner drowned in that of the rabble; for if the fortune sufficient for qualifying a person at present to give his voice in state affairs, be ten times less than was judged sufficient upon forming the constitution, it is evident that greater numbers of the rabble will be introduced into the political system, and they ever moving in the vortex of the great, will follow where greatness shall direct. In such a state, therefore, all that the middle order has left, is to preserve the prerogative and privileges of the one principal tyrant with the most sacred circumspection. For he divides the power of the rich, and calls off the great from falling with tenfold weight on the middle order placed beneath them. The middle order may be compared to a town of which the opulent are forming a siege, and which the tyrant is is hastening to relieve. While the besiegers are in dread of the external enemy, it is but natural to offer the townsmen the most specious terms; to flatter them with sounds, and amuse them with privileges: but if they once defeat the tyrant, the walls of the town will be but a small defence to its inhabitants. What they may expect, may be seen by turning our eyes to Holland, Genoa, or Venice, where the laws govern the poor, and the rich govern the law. I am then for, and would die for, monarchy, sacred monarchy; for if there be anything sacred amongst men, it must be the the anointed sovereign of his people, and every diminution of his power in war, or in peace, is an infringement upon the real liberties of the subject. The sounds of liberty, patriotism, and Britons, have already done much, it is to be hoped that the true sons of freedom will prevent their ever doing more. I have known many of those bold champions of liberty in my time, yet do I not remember one that was not in his heart and in his family a tyrant."
Thursday, April 4, 2013
One Ring to Rule Them All
The bionic mosquito takes a very hard-assed approach to banking; Why Not a Free Market in Money? He argues that all commerce, including banking can be self-regulating based on voluntary agreements "with the requisite condition that members within the society by-and-large respect the non-aggression principle." No regulation necessary. I'm in complete agreement, except I should throw in that it will only happen in the very unlikely event that the present masters of the universe allow it to be taken from their cold, dead hands. Hope in one hand...
I've been puzzled for quite a while about two features of modern banking that don't fit together in any theoretical framework;
first - savings rates have been declining, and until recently (households have been de-leveraging in response to the credit crises) and interest on deposits have been so low there is really no incentive to financial intermediation. Even with extremely low reserve requirements, I don't see how there can be so many small banks, since home loans, after the death of traditional S&L's are usually originated by specialized mortgage bankers and small and medium consumer loans are (I'm guessing here) mostly done on charge cards. So I gather that retail banks are making their money on large consumer loans such as autos, and lines of credit to small businesses. This is understandable, but where I live in suburban Washington D.C. there seems to be a bank on every corner, most of which no one ever heard of five years ago. It seems to me that this model could only work without real competition, meaning that these banks are essentially franchises of the Fed, a cartel where risk and reward are controlled and averaged out. Anything like a free market would eliminate 90% or more. Scary to the bankers. Almost nobody likes risk if a guaranteed small return is sufficient.
Secondly, credit cards are essentially zero-reserve loans, each purchase is made with "thin air" money up to the individual's credit limit and backed by nothing more than the merchant's trust that VISA will pay. I suppose it's not considered inflationary because much of it is extinguished month to month, but the total amount has got to be huge. I imagine it's close to FRB levels before Permanent QE. [I really should do some research before I post this. I really should floss more often, too]. This does seem very "free market" to me, because there is a circle of anonymous trust between the customer, the vendor and the bank that simply didn't exist with traditional banknotes - checks. It is higher velocity even than cash because of added protection from vendor fraud. I think this is close to free banking except that I strongly suspect it is also cartelized at the top. There was Visa, MC, and American Express which wasn't really credit (payable on receipt) and I think on the way out. A thinly disguised "natural monopoly" due to very high barrier to entry; it would be almost impossible for a new competitor to bootstrap that level of trust, except by an enormous player. I guess will see when "they" decide to let Morgan or Citi do a Lehman in the next crisis and we all get our GS cards, probably RFI implants. That is a little scary.
Friday, March 29, 2013
MSM - More Tasty, Less Filling, part one
I was alerted by Mick Perry's reference on Antiwar's column by Nebojsa Malic to his Turkish Cypriot friend's comment on the Cypriot banking scandal.
"Last week my Turkish Cypriot newsagent was scratching his head in bewilderment asking “Don't they realise that they have undermined people's confidence in banks everywhere?”, and this seems to be a universal sentiment."
I've been on track of the dog-that-doesn't-bark in the continuing story, that is, how does the divided nature of the island weigh in one's understanding of the issue, particularly whether the muslim proscription of usury has acted as a firewall on the Turkish Cypriot banking sector?
I haven't been able to find anything substantial beyond two BBC videos on youtube that confirm that Turkish Cypriot banks are doing okay. No in-depth analysis of the history of, or current effects of the war, the on-going division of the island, the British bases, the fact that northern Cyprus is only recognized by Turkey, the puzzling recent rapprochement of Turkey/Israel, the discovery of huge undersea gas fields in the eastern Med, the actions of Russians (who would not mind inheriting the bases, I'm sure), and how these things might affect the civil war in Syria. A whole pack of non-barking dogs seemingly ignored by the media, that make his news dealer as much an expert as anyone.
Ambrose Bierce (I think - too lazy to check) said "War is God's way of teaching Americans geography." although I think we forget faster than we learn.
"Last week my Turkish Cypriot newsagent was scratching his head in bewilderment asking “Don't they realise that they have undermined people's confidence in banks everywhere?”, and this seems to be a universal sentiment."
I've been on track of the dog-that-doesn't-bark in the continuing story, that is, how does the divided nature of the island weigh in one's understanding of the issue, particularly whether the muslim proscription of usury has acted as a firewall on the Turkish Cypriot banking sector?
I haven't been able to find anything substantial beyond two BBC videos on youtube that confirm that Turkish Cypriot banks are doing okay. No in-depth analysis of the history of, or current effects of the war, the on-going division of the island, the British bases, the fact that northern Cyprus is only recognized by Turkey, the puzzling recent rapprochement of Turkey/Israel, the discovery of huge undersea gas fields in the eastern Med, the actions of Russians (who would not mind inheriting the bases, I'm sure), and how these things might affect the civil war in Syria. A whole pack of non-barking dogs seemingly ignored by the media, that make his news dealer as much an expert as anyone.
Ambrose Bierce (I think - too lazy to check) said "War is God's way of teaching Americans geography." although I think we forget faster than we learn.
Thursday, March 28, 2013
The External Monkeyshines of the Mindless Scrot
Remember when Jim Carrey was funny? One movie - now he's Barbara Streisand without her winning personality, non-irritating voice and good looks. The liberal jugernaught speeds toward the end of the line.
CDH/MF!
CDH/MF!
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
Bill O'Reilley is a Hypocrite
I really think I'm on to something with my earlier lawyer remark. ["The whole gay marriage thing is just a scam by divorce lawyers to drum up business."] Divorce
lawyers have got to be hating the modern life; young people are
disinclined to wed and mostly too poor to be worth divorcing and the
wealthy are smart enough to get good pre-nups but gay (dudes, I have
zero problems with lezzies) divorce is going to be a gold mine - high
income and fabulous property combined with plenty of emotionalism
(generalize much?) and ego plus some jealousy and rage. Just add alcohol
- ka-ching!
I told my wife about this theory, plus why drugs are still illegal, and she asked me if I really thought lawyers had that much power, so I asked her who she thinks writes the laws. To be clear, I'm not against gays or gay marriage, I'm against the government being involved in any way. It's just another example of "fixing" a problem caused by the same people that are now going to solve it.
@JustinRaimondo "it used to be that the fun of being gay was we didn't have to get married, go in the army or have kids." -Dir John Waters
I told my wife about this theory, plus why drugs are still illegal, and she asked me if I really thought lawyers had that much power, so I asked her who she thinks writes the laws. To be clear, I'm not against gays or gay marriage, I'm against the government being involved in any way. It's just another example of "fixing" a problem caused by the same people that are now going to solve it.
Sunday, March 24, 2013
Ah am Not a Libuhtarian
Fake libertarians like Beck and Andrew Sullivan are generally easy to spot because they were neo-cons when it counted and will certainly revert as soon as they start passing water through their bloomers after the next fake scare. I'm inclined to label them Incontinent Conservatives and Opportunistic Barebackers except that juvenile name calling is practically the signature and only anti-libertarian argument. "Did you see the schmuck on that camel?"
Curiously, this works well for me because if someone says or implies they aren't Libertarian I can, and usually do, (since I'm not a masochist), stop paying attention right there. I also identify as a Constitutional Conservative, but since both the Constitution and "conservatism" are virtually dead, that isn't very useful. I remain a Rothbardian, a Rockwellian and a Paultard. "Randian"? No way, although I wish him and (some) of his allies well. So far...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
