Happy Giftmas...

Giftmas is a term that has been used to take the Christ out of Christmas as it were.  It's been derided as the ultimate commercialization of the holy Christmas holiday season and as such, a distasteful greedy expression of the worst capitalism has ever stood for.

But for me the commercialization of Christmas is the reason to celebrate...

Think about it. 

We spend our lives working, trying as hard as we can to achieve something.  Whether that achievement is some measure of fame, fortune or some other expression of our happiness, our life, our purpose.  
The commercialization of Christmas is a yearly expression of our success, of our achievement throughout the rest of the year, of our happiness.  We spend our money and our precious time buying things for our loved ones, and enjoying their company, feasting and partying and making merry. 

The products we buy are the product of the labour and creation of all those people around us.  They are in effect the essence and cause of our neighbours, friends and coworkers celebrations as well as our own.  The arguable platitude that "tis better to give than to receive" is not so altruistic if you consider that we give our productive effort each and every day, but our giving is more than an expression of devotion, love or respect, it is an expression of our own pride, our own productiveness.

So don't lament the commercialization of Christmas, give, eat, drink and be merry because not only did you all earn it, you all created it.

Right, For all the Wrong Reasons

Irvin Studin’s idea to increase immigration into Canada is a good one, but although he momentarily catches sight of why it is a good idea when he says, “The Canada of 100 million has a far larger national market and the attendant economies of scale and scope…” this is a mere afterthought for him.

To Mr. Studin, hailed as something of a public policy wonder-kid, the prime reason to open immigration and increase Canada’s population is to “build strong national institutions and structures across the vast territory of Canada -- institutions that, while today are often absent or weak, would eventually serve as a bulwark for international strategic influence. Second, a far larger talent pool to populate the strategic arms of the state -- the military, diplomatic, civil service and political branches of government, as well as business, cultural, educational and scientific sectors.”

If you read the entire article it becomes quite clear that Mr. Studin’s intent is solely focused on increasing the power of the state both within and outside of Canada.

He envisions some sort of superpower which will simultaneously see the Canadian people held from cradle to grave by the “strategic arms of the state” and witness the rise of Canada as an international military and diplomatic force, with emphasis on the force part.

This is exactly the wrong reason to increase immigration and Studin's plan which counts on immigration as a force in and of itself is exactly the wrong way to go about it.

I agree that Canada ought to open up immigration and have it limited only for national security reasons, to prevent the spread of infectious diseases or to keep criminals out. But there is something else that must be done first.

First we should begin to dismantle the so called social safety net. The reason why we should do this ought to be self-evident. We want people to come to Canada to work. We want them to come here for the opportunity to succeed and thrive in a country that offers them more freedom to achieve than the one they just left.

Consider the United States in its early history. Immigrants didn’t flock to America for social services or “strong national institutions”, they came for the opportunity to be free and to make their own way in the world. As a result of that “pioneer spirit” the USA went from upstart colony to world superpower in less time than Mr. Studin could imagine in his wildest public policy wet dream.

Once we have ensured that immigrants won’t be coming to Canada to turn the “social safety net” into a hammock there is another step we must take before we can open the flood gates, and be reasonably assured that those that come will be those that want the freedom that we can offer, the freedom to prosper.

Now with immigration comes the economic benefit of all those added people. Mr. Studin continues to apply all this human power to “applied research institutions; to aid the generation of policy ideas; to create bona fide national institutions of higher culture in the musical, visual and theatrical arts; to justify national sports leagues” but he seemingly ignores the very thing that makes all of that possible… Individual economic activity.

To make this immigration plan work you can not just dump a bunch of people onto the land and expect great cities to rise, or… well you could if no one was going to get in their way… but sadly Canada is an over-regulated, politically restrictive pseudo-capitalist, bureaucratic welfare state.

So step two, before immigration can be opened up with any realistic hope of creating the wealth and its serendipitous cousin the power - that Mr. Studin so fervently desires - is to begin dismantling the bureaucracy. We would need to get the government at all levels out of the way of the people who actually make that wealth and power a possibility.

The best way to accomplish this would be to have, as Ayn Rand put it in her brilliant collection of essays The Virtue of Selfishness, “a separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church..” . Initially, however, I think we could go a long way by eliminating superfluous regulations, business taxes and the sort of nickel and dime, money wasting red tape nightmares that make it so hard to open and run a business today.

Sure it will mean that consumers will have to be more aware of the services and goods they contract and consume, (with lessened regulation I am not so naive to think that some unscrupulous men won’t try to cheat and defraud) but that is part and parcel of being free. Besides we are not talking about eliminating the courts or police services and such frauds should be held to account by the law.

So now with the social safety net severely curtailed if not gone completely, and our bureaucracy restricted to the absolute bare minimum, Irvin Studin’s proposal for increased immigration could be implemented with reasonable chance of success.

Although this would no doubt lead to more economic, political and international clout for Canada I doubt that with the reduced scope of “strong national institutions” and the reduction or elimination of “strategic arms of the state” that Mr. Studin would recognize or appreciate the change.

Capitalism isn't the Problem... Its the Solution

This is the kind of thinking that the majority of people don't do.

Say No to "Fair Trade"

I've always avoided "fair trade" products, equating them with collectivism and anti-industrialists, this article proves my assumptions correct.

Capitalism and freedom remain the best and surest road to prosperity.

H/T Diana at Noodlefood

Christmas

From the Ayn Rand Lexicon...

[In answer to the question of whether it is appropriate for an atheist to celebrate Christmas:]

Yes, of course. A national holiday, in this country, cannot have an exclusively religious meaning. The secular meaning of the Christmas holiday is wider than the tenets of any particular religion: it is good will toward men—a frame of mind which is not the exclusive property (though it is supposed to be part, but is a largely unobserved part) of the Christian religion.

The charming aspect of Christmas is the fact that it expresses good will in a cheerful, happy, benevolent, non-sacrificial way. One says: “Merry Christmas”—not “Weep and Repent.” And the good will is expressed in a material, earthly form—by giving presents to one’s friends, or by sending them cards in token of remembrance . . . .

The best aspect of Christmas is the aspect usually decried by the mystics: the fact that Christmas has been commercialized. The gift-buying . . . stimulates an enormous outpouring of ingenuity in the creation of products devoted to a single purpose: to give men pleasure. And the street decorations put up by department stores and other institutions—the Christmas trees, the winking lights, the glittering colors—provide the city with a spectacular display, which only “commercial greed” could afford to give us. One would have to be terribly depressed to resist the wonderful gaiety of that spectacle.

The Objectivist Calendar, Dec. 1976.

Merry Christmas one and all!

What if Milton Friedman was addressing America's schoolchildren?

Although a President making an address to schoolchildren should not seem controversial, President Barack Obama has managed to arouse a great deal of resistance and opposition to his planned address.

The controversy isn't so much about the remarks of the address (which, being pitched to children, is relatively mild and uncontroversial in of itself), but the larger context of how the administration operates in general and the crude and ill conceived "learning package" that was planned to go with the speech, a package for America's schoolchildren which has all the hallmarks of indoctrination.

Perhaps it would be better if schoolchildren everywhere were to hear from notables like Milton Friedman. I pulled this gem from "Dr Helen":

I would rather think that the words of Milton Friedman from his book Capitalism and Freedom make more sense:

"The paternalistic 'what your country can do for you' implies that government is the patron, the citizen the ward, a view that is at odds with the free man's belief in his own responsibility for his own destiny. The organismic, 'what you can do for your country' implies that government is the master or the deity, the citizen, the servant or the votary. To the free man, the country is the collection of individuals who compose it, not something over and above them. He is proud of a common heritage and loyal to common traditions. But he regards government as a means, an instrumentality, neither a grantor of favors, and gifts, nor a master or god to be blindly worshipped and served.

Now there is a lesson we can all get behind

Are We There Yet?

“The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.”
Ayn Rand

If you read the news today or have been reading it for the last while you are virtually assaulted by the systemic use of tax money to bail out here, or subsidize there. The workers cry out for it, the Unions beg for it, the businessmen complain that they can not survive without it and the politicians dole it out.

When this is done a majority of consumers sagely nod their heads, Unions and businessmen grimly set their jaws and make a show of “getting to work” and Politicians on the left and on the right preach the gospel of regulation, control and “social responsibility”.

It’s systemic, invasive, pervasive and sickening.

So, as the title of this post asks… Are we there yet? Is it necessary for honest rights respecting folks to be criminals in order to live their lives as men?

Still seeking "Galt's gulch"

Right now, I am still thinking about how a "virtual" Galt's Gulch would work, since we are living in an era that does resemble the collapse of American free enterprise in Atlas Shrugged. While it is very nice to stand and declare your beliefs, most readers can see there is an ever increasing trend towards State intervention in everything, and State oppression is pretty close at hand (if not there already, see the CHRC or the American Congress openly considering a bill of attender against AIG executives...).

Being able to disappear from the view of State censors or other Brownshirt thugs will be a real survival mechanism for anyone who wants to keep liberty alive in these conditions. I am also not so confident that civilization can be rebuilt on Classical Liberal principles as easily as making the sign of the dollar in the air; I am thinking in the worst case we actually need to consider a sort of Irish Monastery project  (although this could also just be natural paranoia peeking through).

Sadly, a physical Galt's Gulch is probably not practical or feasible in the here and now (at least not if we like hot and cold running water), and attempts to stake out a physical space in the oceans or deserts is probably doomed to failure in the face of State competition (and the reason we have "States" is because they were the best form of organization for creating and controlling military power ever devised). Unless someone comes up with inexpensive access to space so communities can be established on the Moon, asteroids and moons of the gas giant planets far away from current State competition, then we are stuck with the virtual world.

I am still heartened by ideas that the Libertarian Revolution is actually a social rather than political movement, and Objectivism is certainly part of this movement. The T.E.A. party movement shows there is a groundswell of opinion against the current political and social situation, but no one has managed to capture it just yet, and of course there is always the danger that the T.E.A. party could either devolve into irrelevance or be captured by "the man on the white horse".

Of course, hunkering down in a real or virtual bunker against the impending Apocalypse is pretty defeatist. As Jerry Pournelle reminds readers of his blog "Chaos Manor"; Despair is a Sin. We need to move outwards in all kinds of unexpected directions, small furry mammals in the Jurassic political park. 

-Using virtual tools to create and operate in an underground economy

-Going Ragnar Danneskjöld and applying for government grants equal to the taxes you have paid

- Boycotting companies and media that actively promote or support statist views and policy (GM anyone?)

- Supporting political candidates of the Freedom Party or Libertarian Party (a small "c" conservative party if there are no representatives of the first two parties available).

- Working at the municipal level against statist policies

- Becoming energy self sufficient and getting off the grid. Minimizing the use of other centralized services as much as possible or practical is also encouraged.

As you can see, there are lots of possible options, and not every one is possible for every person. You will have to decide which ones work for you, and then execute the plan. The individual actions of thousands or millions of people will have a huge impact, and you can vote with your dollars and your actions every single day.

Freedom is a self help project!

Re: Ayn Rand: Don't call it a comeback

Is it any wonder that in the factual vacuum Mr Leonard has created with his article “Ayn Rand: Don’t call it a comeback” we find the spirit of one of her most vicious sycophants Ellsworth Toohey peering back at us?

In “The Fountainhead” Toohey paints himself as representative of the will of the masses but as with Mr. Leonard his lack of any personal genius or talent leaves him to try to tear down with words the true genius of others.

Mr. Leonard curses the very people and the very system that made the USA and the western world the bastion of freedom it is. The west is the place to which the truly oppressed and the truly needy of the world flock in droves every year. Why? Because of our freedom, and that freedom is not possible in a place without capitalism, even the weak kneed version we see today.

The Capitalism which fosters our freedom depends on the productive work of men, the ones Ayn Rand called the Atlas’ of the world. Those men work for their own pleasure, for their own self interest, but without the Atlas’ of this world we would not have all that we do. For every thief like Bernie Madof there are 100,000,000 honest businessmen working and creating, making money and paying the wages and ensuring that we, the common man have the unimaginable bounty of goods and services, bits and baubles that makes living here, in the USA and the Western world the absolute envy of every other part of the globe.

It’s a sad, sad thing that this article has been cheered by the same people who go off to work for GE, Microsoft, Ford and a host of other enterprises. Each if these companies rely on the creative genius, the drive and passion of productive men, men like those honoured by Ayn Rand in The Fountainhead, and Atlas Shrugged. This ‘article’ is living proof of the anti-intellectualism and the collectivist ideal that she cursed for her entire life.

Thankfully, any of us with cognitive skills above the level of the paramecium can discount Mr. Leonard and take the example of another of Ayn Rand’s heroes and say to him and all like him…

“But I don’t think of you...”

Your Money is In It…

Because there is no money in it.

The reason why government is so hot and horny to “develop” the green economy, to “build” green jobs and “aid” green business is because there is no way to make a living off of these things.

If there were capitalists of all stripes, of any and all political, environmental and social inclinations would be tripping all over themselves for a piece of this "new market".

Think about it…

In a world where capitalists have us convinced to spend our hard earned dollars on bottled water when the stuff flows out of our taps almost for free, do you not think they would be making money hand over fist off the environmental craze if they could?

Just like Chrysler, your money is going to be put there by force, because no one wants their money to be there by choice.

Goverment Monopoly's Day Off

I'm trying to think of a single solitary instance where there was a demand for a product in a free market that was not satisfied.

Anyone, anyone...
Bueller???

It doesn't happen. Only when there is a monopoly or there is no longer a supply of materials can such a situation occur.

There is no shortage of uranium.

That leaves only one cause. Monopoly, and that is impossible without the government using its legitimate monopoly of the use of force to create an illegitimate monopoly in the realm of business.

But the issue is wider than just the case against government imposed monopoly, it speaks to the absolute inability of government to be effective in any long term business venture.

I can not imagine any business that controlled 70% of a market allowing it's critical infrastructure to literally disintegrate. Could you imagine Toyota allowing its robotic welders to become inoperable due to neglect?

But it is worse than that. The government, in creating this monopoly said in effect "This is too vital/important/dangerous to leave to business. We must control this substance. We will provide this service, you can rely on us..." then they reneged.

Government and business... separate them NOW!

The Profit Motive

As soon as you allow government to immerse itself in the provision of services for which people are normally paid, or in which businesses or individuals have a vested interest then you have a recipe for corruption, nepotism and cronyism.

A case in point.

The thing is, the only reason that the hiring of these companies was a crime, the only reason why there has to be this air of transparency is because the Government is involved.

Why this is a problem is because the Government forces you to pay and since it steals your money it wants to assure you through the tendering of contracts or some other mechanism that it isn't going to their friends... at least the ones that don't deserve it. It's all done to assure you that your money isn't being stolen twice.

The reason why I say this is the only reason, is because if you voluntarily called a private company providing the same service, as long as you received those services you wouldn't care if the Doctor or Nurse advising you was related to the company owner would you?

I'm sure that there will be an inquiry into this affair. I'm sure it will cost us (you and I, the taxpayers) a lot of money and I'm equally sure there will be recommendations and reports and news stories and on and on and on and on.

You know what else I'm sure about, that Telehealth Ontario is a pitiful attempt by the government to provide "healthcare".

As costs soar our collective dollars are worth less and less so our level of healthcare is reduced. They take our money and try to pass off a 1-800 number as an innovation in healthcare while people wait months for knee and hip surgery. "Don't go to the emergency room, don't go to the clinic, call this 1-800 number and get medical advice over the phone!" Sounds like a really good idea... Riiiiiiiight..

I'm also sure that if there was such a thing as market competition in the medical field in Canada our costs would be going down... Competition does that, and you know what else, if there was market competition and someone wanted to set up a "Telehealth Business" we wouldn't be left paying for a "commission of inquiry" every time the Owner contracted his buddy to work as a consultant.

Business and Government...

Separate them NOW!

Obama's Smackdown

Thank you Anne Wortham.

H/T mpt's Web Site

NEWSFLASH!!!

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A RIGHT TO A JOB!

People whine and bitch about the contractually assured bonuses of CEO's and the government eggs them on... then there's this.

From the article:

“What makes me glum about it all is that it's extremely difficult to get around the political necessity of subsidizing employment at an extraordinarily high cost per job..."

WTF is there to 'get around'? How about the concept that government is not, was not, and was never intended to ensure anyone, at any time, for any reason, was employed! It's not their job!

I'll say it again... There is no such thing as a right to a job! The only thing government should be ensuring is individual rights and that isn't on the list.

$1.5 million per job holy freaking deficits Batman! We would actually save money by just giving each and every GM employee a million dollars!

This isn't capitalism, this isn't conservatism, this isn't even rational.

Silly Me...

I should have bought a Chrysler or GM...

Oh, wait! Maybe I did...

Nope, I didn't. I chose a Toyota, because Chrysler and GM didn't produce the kind or quality of vehicle I wanted.

Thanks to the government I will get to make payments on them though.


So let me get this right, it is now the responsibility of government to honour the warrantees of private companies to individual consumers?

And this current cleptocracy calls itself "Conservative"? WTF ever happened to limited government?

Contract? What Contract?

What happened to contract law in the USA?

"New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo says 15 employees who received some of the largest bonuses from American International Group have agreed to return more than $30 million US worth of payments."

America...
Land of the fleeced, home of the berated.

"Cuomo said he doesn't plan to release the names of the employees who agreed to return the bonuses, and said there is no implied threat that if an employee doesn't consent to returning the bonus that their name will be released.

Cuomo had sought the names of the employees who received bonuses from Liddy through a subpoena. He said his office is continuing to assess the security of the employees."

Yeah, Riiiiiiiight...

Link

Episode IV: A New Hope

GALT LEADER: All Taxpayers report in.

Atlanta Tea Party standing by.

Orlando Tea Party standing by.

Chicago Tea Party standing by.

LA Tea Party standing by.

Raleigh Tea Party standing by.

Ridgfield Tea Party standing by.

Cincinnati Tea Party standing by.

New York Tea Party standing by.

GALT LEADER: Lock S-foils in attack position.

Inquisition 2009

Punishing producers reminds me of the dark ages practice of torturing, excommunicating and killing the guy that dared to use his mind.

As Thucydides said so well... Atlas Shrugged was supposed to be a warning, not a blueprint.

"Study after study over the past several decades has shown how countries that spend more produce less, while nations that tax less produce more. Obama is doing it wrong on both counts."

h/t to PUBLIUS @ Gods of The Copybook Headings

Tea Time in Chicago

Santelli's Chicago Tea Party

CNBC's Rick Santelli and the traders on the floor of the CBOE express outrage over the notion they may have to pay their neighbor's mortgage, particularly if they bought far more house than they could actually afford, with Jason Roney, Sharmac Capital.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1039849853

Here's to Hope and Change people!

If You're Happy and You Know It,

Clank Your...

"In Reich's worldview, it's groups that matter and individualism that's the enemy. "The American myth of the triumphant individual may have outlasted its time," Reich has explained. "The story of the little guy who works hard, takes risks, believes in himself and eventually earns wealth, fame and honor" is outmoded.

Instead, "we must begin to celebrate collective entrepreneurship," states Reich. In place of individuals who "buck the odds" with "drive and guts," Reich argues for a world where the central planners right the wrongs, determine the production, distribute the rewards in a "fair" manner, i.e., with "only modest differences in income," and knock the rough edges off anyone who doesn't demonstrate sufficient obedience to the collective."

H/T West