Truth in Advertising

Pulling a Ragnar Danneskjöld

Instapundit recently published a blog post asking if it is time for Americans to pull a "John Gault" and go on strike against a prospective Obama administration and Congressional Democratic supermajority. For the few readers who may not understand the allusion; John Galt withdraws from a socialist society and convinces other thinkers and doers to do the same. The United States is crippled not only because of the redistributive policies followed by the various State and Federal governments, but because the very people who's productivity and effort provides the funds and motive power to the State are no longer there.

Ragnar Danneskjold is one of the strikers, who takes more positive action, rather than passively withdrawing from society, he becomes a pirate and actively destroys "gift ships" that the United States sends to the various People's States around the world (although he makes a point of avoiding confrontations with the United States Navy and Coast Guard, since they are performing their proper roles). This is direct action against the philosophy of "spreading the wealth" by preventing it from being used to subsidize or otherwise support other "looter" regimes. In on of the great scenes of the novel, Ragnar Danneskjold seeks out one of the non strikers; Hank Rearden, and offers him some comfort as the looming forces of the State increase the pressure on him. As partial restitution for the hardship and suffering Rearden has suffered at the hands of the State, Danneskjold offers repayment in gold of Rearden's income taxes.

We can do the same. If governments or the State want to "spread the wealth", it is quite reasonable to ask; "why not to us?" Readers are urged to think of the example of Ragnar Danneskjold and use the various mechanisms the State has or will offer to request your income tax back. If the State offers funds to start a new business or hire employees, plug into that program for the amount of your income tax. Rebates for going green? How green can you go (up to the maximum amount of your taxes). American readers will have somewhat different calculations to make, income taxes might not rise initially under an Obama administration, but withholdings like FICA will go up, and probably by dramatic amounts.

Here is how another correspondent puts it:

A REVERSE-JOHN-GALT? Tom Spaulding writes: "So, if Obama actually wins this election and delivers on even half of his promises, I'm vacillating on whether to pull a reverse John Galt and plug IN to the system. . . . So I mean to look into every government assistance program Obama/Pelosi/Reid provides or funds. Even if I don't sign up, at least I'll have an idea where my money is going to. But if I do take an occasional sip from the public teat, consider it my own way of 'spreading the wealth' back around to me."

Piracy may be profitable and fun during the Obama administration. With luck, we can strike the "Black Flag" in 2012.

A radical approach to dealing with the financial crisis

WRT the economy, I think the various notions being floated or practiced now are dangerous nonsense. Nationalizing the banks or debt will further distort the economy and lead to inflation. Given the sordid history of State intervention in the housing market which caused this mess in the first place, I would be very reluctant to accept that further direct intervention in the economy can "help". Someone needs to take the lead with a more radical approach that restores liquidity and confidence without breaking the bank. For a Canadian solution I propose:

a. Eliminating business income tax entirely. Business does not pay tax anyway, but simply passes on the costs to consumers. Dropping the tax will free up massive amounts of resources to retool, pay off debt or whatever else the owners see fit, and give the overall economy a huge boost. The political criticism from the "Progressives" and regional interests can be deflected by pointing out that every business and every region will benefit without prejudice or special favor, and the amount of funds released into the productive economy will create many new jobs. The $50 billion in business tax cuts that Jack Layton wanted to take back is the resources to create 1,000,000 new, full time jobs. That's a lot of kitchen tables.

b. Institute a single tax (AKA Flat tax). Eliminating all loopholes, exemptions etc. will make revenue collection much easier, and also deflect criticism from the "Progressives". As a bonus, a single tax can free up about $3 billion after tax dollars a year in compliance costs to taxpayers and business; more funds that can flow to the productive economy pot.

c. Eliminate corporate subsidies as a partial payment for "a". Corporate subsidies cost an estimated $19 billion per year to the taxpayer, probably a lot more if regional funds, special initiatives to "selected" industries, agriculture, arts and culture etc. are included. Since the business world receives a huge boost from eliminating business tax, dropping subsidies is a fair trade off, and since the elimination of business income tax will assist all business, calls for corporate subsidies to "selected" industries and regions can be muted.

Can such a plan be implemented? Prime Minister Harper has demonstrated a great deal of skill in handling a fractious parliament in the past. The plan can appeal to both the business wing of the Liberal party (by helping business nation wide) and the "Progressives" of all stripes by providing resources to create new jobs across all sectors of the economy and all regions. Careful explanation and stickhandling through parliament will be needed to get this passed, and I am not sure that even a global financial crisis engulfing the Canadian economy like a tsunami will cause politicians to drop petty partisan differences for the greater good.

Still, forward this plan to every person and media outlet you can; discussion can only increase the number of options that can be considered.

"I am a free Canadian" -- election day blogburst

"I am a Canadian,
a free Canadian,
free to speak without fear,
free to worship God in my own way,
free to stand for what I think right,
free to oppose what I believe wrong,
free to choose those who shall govern my country.
This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold
for myself and for all mankind."

h/t: five feet of fury
Small Dead Animals

Men, not Law

I was visiting a Conservative Party candidate at her open house when it was crashed by several people "protesting" the deportation of American servicemen who have deserted and fled to Canada.

Now, while I support free speech, I most certainly don't support the position of these people. The servicemen volunteered to serve the United States, expecting to receive pay, benefits and training, but failed to maintain their end of the commitment. The short description of their action is desertion, and is a crime against the American government.

These servicemembers claimed refugee status in Canada, and have made various arguments such as being real refugees (in danger of persecution by their home government), contientious objectors (a legal process which American servicemembers can claim within the American military, but which these servicemembers either did not claim or failed to prove their case) and various other claims. They were provided with access to the Canadian legal system, and went through the legal process and lost.

The people who support the American servicemen and want to stop the deportations are explicitly attempting to overturn the Rule of Law in Canada. Their ideal state was inadvertently revealed in London Ontario on October 10, when several thuggish "War resistor supporters" pushed a women into traffic for disagreeing with them. (Luckily she was not injured). I wonder if these "War resistor supporters" have contemplated what sort of society they are advocating for, or how they will fare against larger and more organized groups that disagree with them in such an anarchistic state?

And What Exactly Is That?

Stephane Dion said...

By taxing non-productive, pollution-heavy activities while at the same time cutting personal and corporate income taxes, Canada will create jobs and stimulate growth, Dion argued.

What activities are those? What is a "non-productive, pollution heavy activity"? Anyone? Anyone? Behuler?

The only two I can think of are Question Period and the CBC...

Non-productive, pollution-heavy activities... that's almost as sketchy as Commie Jack Layton's one liner about "The real economy", which is nothing more than socialist double speak for the miraculous creation of jobs without any corporate involvement (because they've all been taxed into receivership or moved to Mexico, where they have some rights).

Babies, Bathwater and Bail-outs

The current market blowout is being heralded by government and the media as a failure, no, as a direct result of capitalism. Blame for it is being laid at the feet of corporations and banks and business’. This is a lie.

This lie is being told by government and is reinforced by a simpering media who neither understand, nor in any way wish to protect the one and only system of commerce that allows them to function independently and freely. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.

Capitalism, and when I say capitalism I mean true lassiez faire capitalism could not have created this mess. I want this to be understood, this is not a claim that it wouldn’t happen but a flat statement of fact that it couldn’t happen.

Under laissez faire capitalism there is a complete separation of economics and government. So the initial causal factor that led to this market instability, namely the long line of corporate bail outs would never have happened and this would have fostered an ideal of fiscal prudence in all business sectors. Sure, perhaps the stock market would have risen slower than it did, but it would have risen on actual, hard economic indicators and financial data, not false and whimsical governmental vagaries.

The demand from the US government to that nations banks that a percentage of mortgages be given to people who would otherwise not qualify would never have happened either.

Why? Because any banker in a system of laissez fair capitalism would know two things for sure.

1. That his policies and his lending practices were his responsibility and his responsibility alone. A foolish gamble on persons who would most likely not qualify for a pay-day-loan much less a $200,000.00 mortgage would in all likelihood cost him his job. No ifs, ands or buts.
2. That it would be impossible for government to save him or his bank from the result of stupid lending policies.

Another thing that could not have happened were capitalism to truly reign is that Banks would never have loaned money out at a rate lower than the established interest rate. Sub-prime rates are a government construct, which allowed banks to lend money to unqualified persons at a rate lower than what it cost the bank to borrow that money in the first place. The Bankers initially ordered to make the loans possible and then led to believe they would be bailed out by government saw, a win-win proposition.

Was there greed involved? Certainly, but it was not the cause, it was an all too predictable by-product of a system that had been gamed, designed, manipulated and constructed to appear to be real, solid and safe when in actual fact it was built on the vagaries of governmental policies, divorced from any real economic principal, and the worst self-serving political promises.

Capitalism didn’t fail us, the government did. Laissez Fair economics didn’t fail, they were never a part of the equation in the first place.

NB. Mark the intentions of those who claim this is a failure of capitalism. They are not throwing out the baby/capitalism with the bathwater/the market system. No, they are throwing out the bathwater and attempting to strangle the baby in its crib for good measure.

With every bail-out and every subsequent market shock, and every bad news story hyped to fever pitch they get closer to their goal. That goal is nothing less than the state ownership of the worlds banks, and that is nothing less than a stranglehold on the wellspring of capitalistic production… our money.

Why fund the Arts?

Watching the BRAVO! "election special on the arts", I was struck by an even greater sense of unreality than usual (and after sitting through a "Woman's Issues" all candidates debate, that is saying a lot...)

Two points in particular struck me:

1. Artists claim that they have "freedom" with State funding but not with private funding. Why does producing art approved by bureaucrats provide more freedom than producing art approved by any other patron? Apparently these "Artists" have no knowledge of the history of "Socialist Realist" art.

2. The mantra of "investing in the arts because it is an $8 billion dollar a year industry is totally nonsensical. If an industry is as mature and as profitable as the Canadian "artistic" community claims, then they clearly have no need of further State funding, from ANY level of government.

If any Conservative party supporters are reading this, feel free to use these points. For that matter, if any Liberal, NDP or Green supporters are reading this, please enlighten me as to why artists who's works we never have heard of or who's names we don't know are entitled to our hard earned money?

The Progressive "Surge"

Progressives of all stripes are discovering that insurgencies can be waged with ideas as well as guns and IED's. Progressives have taken effective control of the MSM, educational institutions, government bureaucracies and even a large portion of the market, but those nasty Classical Liberals (who often go by names like the Conservatives or Republicans, depending on where you live) still seem to be ahead of the game.

In Canada, Classical Liberals have become the governing party (and may possibly win a majority government mandate on Oct 14, 2008). Classical Liberals are also in charge of Alberta and Saskatchewan, two of the wealthiest and fastest growing provinces in Canada, and seem to be making inroads elsewhere.

In the United States, Senator Barack Obama is either tied or only marginally ahead of his Republican rival, despite the adulation of the press and a finance machine that can raise and spend cash at an astronomical rate, far beyond any rivals. Indeed, Senator Obama only defeated Senator Clinton by a small margin, despite having much the same advantage over her.

The reaction of the Progressives is quite illuminating. Consider how open the bias of the MSM has become against any manifestation of Classical Liberalism, its proponents or works. War reporting is astonishingly one sided. Victories are never reported, either spectacular events like the retaking of Anabar province in Iraq, or the small, incrimental gains that the Canadians make every day in Afghanistan. Political reporting is similarly hypocritical; think of the cone of silence which surrounds scandals like John Edward's illicit affair (while his wife is dying of cancer, to boot), the relationships between Democratic party congressmen and senators and "Freddie and Fannie", the two GSE's implicate in the current financial crisis, Elizabeth May's participation in a pro Hezbollah, anti Isreal rally or the almost open collusion between the Canadian Green and Liberal parties; then look at how political figures on the Classical Liberal side of the political spectrum are treated. Govenor Sarah Palin is constantly smeared or belittled in the MSM; a reader is much more likely to find her characterized as a "porn star" rather than the only candidate among the Presidential contenders to have executive experience (and in a large, wealthy and demanding state at that). Prime Minister Stephan Harper is compared to political figures like Hitler or George W Bush (although perhaps the Bush comparison can be seen as a compliment by the Classical Liberal side) and all manner of "Gotcha" journalistic tricks are brought into play rather than examining issues (although to be fair, the Conservative Party of Canada does this as well against their opponents).

Progressives see the ground being cut out from under their feet, and are mounting a surge from their commanding heights to block or limit the Classical Liberals from gaining or retaining power. All manner of dirty tricks are in play: In Canada, "Human Rights Comissions" target Bloggers and journalists who support Classical Liberal principles. In the United States, members of the Obama campaign threaten to prosecute people or organizations who present any contrary view of fact about Senator Obama, possibly fearing a "Swiftboating" of the Senator through revelations about his unsavoury mentors, his connections with the financiers involved in the financial crisis or even just the totally ineffectual nature of his "community organizing". Selective and manipulative press coverage is a given. Discussions in institutions of higher learning or even elementary and high schools are blatent indoctrination (and in many Universities, Orwellian "Speech codes" are employed to silence students and facilty).

It will be difficult to fight against the surge; the Progressives have the power and resources of the State behind them. They still control many of the largest and most important channels of communication, and the mechanisms of the Law are available to be used selectively in favour of the Progressive cause. Still the fight is of critical importance to each and every one of us. Only by standing for our rights can we maintain them. Blogging is perhaps the most notable weapon we have, but even if we are reduced to passing messages by Samisdat we should still make the attempt.

Our ultimate advantage lies in the fact that Progressiveism is a parisitical concept; if they are denied access to State power, they begin to wither on the vine. As usual, Ayn Rand has provided the template; Ellsworth Toohey may have been a "power" with his newspaper column, but once the newspaper chain folded, Toohey's power was gone; he did not create, but was only a parisite upon the creators.