Capitalism:

Capitalism typically refers to an economic and social system in which the means of production (also known as capital) are privately controlled; labor, goods and capital are traded in a market; profits are distributed to owners or invested in new technologies and industries; and wages are paid to labor. (Wikipedia)

Statism:

A major government or state role in the direction of the economy, both directly through state-owned enterprises and indirectly through the state-directed economic planning of the overall economy. (Wikipedia)

It is often stated that we live in a mixed economy, one where statism and capitalism co-exist. In some markets there is little to no government intervention in others there are large interventions by the government. I can think of no markets where government intervention does not exist outside of ‘black-markets’, or more abstract concepts of a market such as trading favors in a relationship, but these usually fall within the private social institutions grouping.

I think it is important prior to expressing an opinion on something as broad as capitalism (or statism) to think about what social institutions create the concept of capitalism (or statism) and which particular social institutions are part of a critique or complaint. Usually the complaint is relative to a small aspect of a social institution rather than it to its entirety (or simply a critique about human nature rather than any particular social institution). Aligning our rhetoric with what we are truly perceiving helps with social discourse.

Nicholas Kristof describes three ill-effects of the War on Drugs:

1. Increased incarceration.

The United States now incarcerates people at a rate nearly five times the world average. In part, that’s because the number of people in prison for drug offenses rose roughly from 41,000 in 1980 to 500,000 today. Until the war on drugs, our incarceration rate was roughly the same as that of other countries.

2. Increased the price and subsequently the profits of drug lords.

One reason many prominent economists have favored easing drug laws is that interdiction raises prices, which increases profit margins for everyone, from the Latin drug cartels to the Taliban.

3. Wasted resources.

Jeffrey Miron, a Harvard economist, found that federal, state and local governments spend $44.1 billion annually enforcing drug prohibitions. We spend seven times as much on drug interdiction, policing and imprisonment as on treatment.

I also just watched a documentary on MS 13 (World’s Most Dangerous Gang) which connected the gang’s power with drug sales.

One simple point I hope my readers can ponder. When was the last time you saw a gas station owner get in a gun fight with another gas station for the rights to sell beer in a neighborhood.

Also check out what the group Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, or LEAP, is doing to support a sound drug policy. This is an organization of police officers, prosecutors, judges and citizens who favor a dramatic liberalization of American drug laws.

Interesting concept about personal and professional masks and the ability of a blog to encompass and bridge various masks. (Link to Ben’s Post ‘Most Natural “You” Emerges When Masks Collapse’)

The steps include:

1) Take Notes
2) Research the Source
3) Look for Buzzwords
4) Is there something missing
5) Could the same article be re-written with a different slant
6) Are there labels applied by the author
Et Cetra

I am not sure we will all look as closely to our news as the How To suggests, but a little awareness of News Bias can only help us truth seekers find the truth.

Come across some good news bias lately. Post a comment and we’ll discuss.

Technorati Tags: News Bias

Hmm, doesn’t this rhetoric seem familiar. Scare the electorate into thinking that no action will lead to a catastrophe and then make large changes to the policies and practices of the United States as fear drives ‘consensus building’ among the legislatures. He’s giving us more of the same. Here are a few examples:

On March 18, 2003 the Washington Post (link to reprint) states the following:

Bush presented grim images of the danger of terrorist strikes on U.S. soil that could kill hundreds of thousands.

“We choose to meet that threat now, where it arises, before it can appear suddenly in our skies and cities,” he said. He spoke darkly of acting “before the day of horror can come.”

On Oct0ber 17, 2007 Bush remarked on the possibility of World War III (link):

President Bush warned of dire consequences if Iran acquires nuclear weapons during a press conference on Wednesday, saying that he had told world leaders the country must be prevented from achieving nuclear capability “if you’re interested in avoiding World War III.”

—————-

It is still the same old story. Obama has yet to make a difference, he is using fear to drive decisions. This is not because he is against change, but rather because fear is the easiest method of controlling the sentiments of a population.

“It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a ‘dismal science.’ But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.” — Murray N. Rothbard

“The probability of the people in power being individuals who would dislike the possession and exercise of power is on a level with the probability that an extremely tender-hearted person would get the job of whipping master in a slave plantation.” — Frank H. Knight (1938), quoted in F. A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1944), p. 152.

Now don’t get me wrong I fully support renewable energy, but why should I pay for someone else’s moral preference. If someone wants to pay more for their electricity, since renewables cost more, then I fully support that choice. Or better yet, they can pay for energy saving technologies or simply turn off their lights and electronics. We all make certain choices in our life that reflect our moral preferences. The issue I take up with, is someone enforcing their morals on me, by requiring that I pay for renewable energy by federally supported subsidies, which get paid for by the taxes taken from me.

If someone wants to support renewable technologies, then send a few bucks to a company developing those technologies. Or ,in some states you have the ability to select on your bill that your energy comes from renewables, so do that and pay the premium associated with such a choice. Do this instead of calling your representative to request that they pass the a national Renewable Portfolio Standard. Let others create their own morals and make their own decisions. And if you don’t like the decisions that make then convince them of why a different decision is better, don’t force them to do so through subsidies paid with taxes.

Technorati Tags: U.S. House of Representatives, Renewable Portfolio Standard, Federal Government, energy saving technologies, subsidies

This all started when Valerie Plame Wilson’s husband published an Op-Ed in the New York Times, ‘What I Didn’t Find in Africa.’ Mr. Wilson makes the claim that after visiting Africa some of the intelligence used to support the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Michael Novak then wrote a response to Mr. Wilson’s Op-Ed, ‘Mission to Niger,’ where he rebutted Wilson’s findings and exposed the identity of his wife. So all this resulted in grand jury investigations, in which Libby was found guilty of obstructing justice by lying to the grand jury about how he acquired and subsequently released information concerning the employment of Valerie Plame Wilson.

So why would President Bush commute Libby’s sentence. To help out a friend, to pay back a favor. That’s not my conclusion, I don’t believe elected officials would blatantly put themselves in such a situation unless it was in their complete self-interest. So what self-interested motivation would President Bush have to commute Libby’s sentence. One possibility is the executive branch now is asked questions about Bush’s Libby Order, as opposed to questions about the justification of the War in Iraq. This is the simple application of a Red Herring, taking the focus away from an important question to one that is less important. Do we as citizens really care more about Bush’s Libby Order which affects one mans life for 2.5 years or the justification of a the War in Iraq that we all have to pay for and has killed over 3,600 and wounded over 26,000 members of our military.(Iraq Casualties) Which one should we care about?

Technorati Tags: CIA Leak, Scooter Libby, Valerie Plame Wilson, What I Didn’t Find in Africa, Mission to Niger, President Bush, Red Herring, War in Iraq, Iraq Casualties

The above link is a pretty neat little overview of the Philosophy of Liberty. So those who have ever had an interest in what my political views are, watch this clip.