Patrick: May 2008 Archives

Gold and Economic Freedom by Alan Greenspan

A good read for anyone interested in monetary policy in the United States (an interest which we should all have).  Greenspan, 1966, attacking fiat currency in defense of the gold standard.  In the mid-nineties while Greenspan was chairman of the Fed, Ron Paul once asked him to autograph a copy of the article and asked him if he wanted to write a disclaimer.  Greenspan privately replied he still stood by it.  One wonders why he didn't act on that belief, sparing us the malinvestment and recession which we are currently enduring.

Of any area which the American citizen should be well-versed regarding their government, I firmly believe the sphere of monetary policy is the most important.  If a government possesses the ability to manipulate currency at their very whim, the damage that can (and will) be done to our economy is catastrophic.  As I've demonstrated in my recent master's thesis (under the paper and projects section of the site), inflationary monetary policy not only can destroy an economy, but can also drive a state toward war.  Every American should understand what inflation is, what the federal reserve does, and why our current system is economically harmful and a redistribution of wealth from the poor and middle class to the rich.

For a sound preliminary discussion, take a look at Ron Paul's money chapter in his Revolution: A Manifesto (an excellent book for the beginner on an assortment of topics).  For further reading, definately take a look at the work of Murray Rothbard, as well as Ron Paul and Lewis Lehrman's The Case for Gold.

Article from the Washington Post here.

There is little urging on the part of Paul to give up your possessions to government to provide for others.  There is an urging, by both Paul and Christ, to be ambivalent toward things like taxes.  Pay them, because your rewards are in heaven, not because they are a good thing.  Your earthly possessions, just like the earthly rulers, should be irrelevent to you, as your rewards, just like your true ruler, are in heaven:  "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, give to God what is God's"
 
Read the gospels and you'll find that Jesus was extremely opposed to any interaction between belief and political power.  Not that He is particularly "anti-government" per se, but He is ambivalent.  What matters is the kingdom of heaven, not the kingdom of men.  When the two become united you have a group like the Pharisees who turn earthly laws into metaphysical salvation.
 
Earthly political rulers are however, viewed negatively (Pilate, Herod, the Pharisees).  Tax collectors are also viewed as scum (i.e. the pharisees criticizing Christ for friending "sinners and tax collectors"; Matthew the tax collector; Zachias the tax collector; etc.)  The fact that the author seems to overlook the constant discussion of taxes and tax collectors throughout the gospels is indicative that he is either being hostile to the senator from Oklahoma for little reason, or he simply is arguing about the content of the gospels without actually having read them.
 
The author is claiming that the Deuteronomical demands on provision to the poor are somehow justifications for taxation by government.  The Exodus and Deuteronomy passages are requirements for living in the religious community, demands saying that as part of your belief, you must also contribute to the poor, similar to the demands by Peter in the book of Acts.  Providing for the less fortunate is a function of the fruits of the spirit, not secular governance. 
 
The long and short of it is that libertarianism is not contradictory to Christianity (as Miss Rand would have us believe), nor is Christianity contradictory toward libertarianism (as liberation theology would have us believe).  They are not however clear justifications for one another.  One is a view of the kingdom of men, and the other is the kingdom of God.  What they do have in common is individualism.  Salvation is through faith between an individual and God, no earthly ruler may intervene.  Indeed, libertarianism as an extension of classical liberalism, is born of the reformation movement of "sola scriptura", refocusing Christianity on the text of the gospels (not traditions of the catholic church).  Part of the text of the gospels is the foundation of individualism (Salvation by Grace through Faith).
 
Senator Coburn is right however, and the author of this article apparently is lacking on both theology and political science.  The compassionate conservatism of George W. Bush and Mike Huckabee is not Christian.  There is no justification for government redistributing wealth in the gospels.

While unrelated to the politics of the gospels, the author's assertion that private charity and the free market cannot combat AIDS or replace medicare is complete nonsense.  Most charity regarding the AIDS virus in Africa is done through private funding.  The proportion of elderly and poor people recieving care prior to medicare and medicaid is the same as it is today.  Private charity did just as good a job taking care of the poor and elderly, while simultaneously keeping costs low for everyone else.  Imagine that.

    In defiance of my expectations, Hillary Clinton declared her intentions to continue her campaign for president last night, even as impossibility begins to creep into the logistics of her nomination.  Part of her rationale comes from the claim that she is more likely to beat John McCain than is Barack Obama.  According to NBC News these claims are based on a series of maps released by Karl Rove that show Clinton to be the superior candidate.  I took the most recent polling done in each state and applied it to the electoral college and got the following (slightly different) maps:

According to the latest Rasmussen Poll, Bob Barr is doing substantially well, despite not yet having received his party's nomination.

Rasmussen Presidential Tracking Poll:

Obama 42%
McCain 38%
Barr 6%
Nader 4%

Even more interesting is the poll also asked respondents the likelihood of a third party candidate winning the presidency in twenty-five years.  39% of respondents believe it to be somewhat or very likely.

For those of you keeping score at home, the last time a third party candidate won the presidency was Abraham Lincoln in the election of 1860.

    I recently discovered that Dublin is constructing a skyscraper in the old wharf area called the "U2  tower".  The tower is to be Dublin's first "skyscraper" and at the top will be a recording studio "pod" for Bono and Co.  Beyond any discussion of whether the logistics of such a project (eminent domain, project financing, etc.) are acceptable, this started a discussion on an entirely different topic:  Who is the greatest rock band of all time?

My List:

1. U2
2. The Beatles
3. The Rolling Stones
4. Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers
5. Lynyrd Skynyrd

The only other list I could find was one on MSNBC here:

1.  The Beatles
2.  The Rolling Stones
3.  U2
4.  The Grateful Dead
5.  Velvet Underground

    Now, I'm willing to accept that the Beatles and/or the Rolling Stones can be logically ranked above U2, though I disagree.  However, I think it is clear U2 resides comfortably in the top five by any measure.

    Feel free to provide your own ranking, but know that no lists that include Jethro Tull or Blue Oyster Cult will be taken seriously.

Article from the Washington Post on Barr's potential to ruin McCain's party here.

    I think it's also worth noting that beyond siphoning away the traditional conservatives that are not enamored with McCain, there's the possibility Barr may significantly hurt Obama as well.  The idea that any anti-war voter is going to vote for McCain, even if they hold small government values, is ludicrous from the start.  The anti-war Barr voters would not be voting for McCain in the first place. 
    Secondly, the Ron Paul youth (libertarian anti-war new voters) are more likely to vote for Obama than McCain (if they're likely to vote for either).  What Barr does is grab the Paul crowd preventing it's potential absorption into either camp.  While the cynic may not view this as significant in terms of votes, the organization of the Paulites is envied by all parties involved.  Barr's libertarian, anti-establishment appearance, coupled with a strong endorsement by Ron Paul, could begin to syphon youth away from Obama while simultaneously siphoning away the NRA, Small Government, and anti-war Republicans from McCain.

The following is determined by the most recent poll in each state:
Solid McCain: AL, AR, AZ, GA, ID, KS, KY LA, MS, OK, TN, TX, UT, WV, WY
Lean McCain: AK, IN, MO, MT, NH, NM, SD, WI
Swing: CO, FL, IA, MA, MI, NC, NE, OH, SC, VA
Lean Obama: CA, DE, ND, NV, OR
Solid Obama: CT, DC, HI, IL, MD, ME, MN, NJ, NY, PA, RI, VT, WA