As I write this, the Dow-Jones Industrial Average is up 53.92 points.  Oooohhhh.  This week, it climbed up 9% from its low of around 6000.  Cause for celebration?  Hardly.  The Dims and pro-stimulus Rips (i.e. Keynesians) are touting the triumph of central banking and government-controlled economics over adversity.  Apparently, so they say, the stimulus plan is working sooner than they thought.  There's a reason the market is up but it's more than likely not the reasons they want you to think.  No one wants to admit why and what is going on which shows how shallow our media is to simply start celebrating stimulus plans at the first sign of an uptick.  Most people are scratching their heads--Dims are pleasantly surprised and Rips are saying, "gee, well I guess it does work".  It doesn't.

In January, believe it or not, we cut our trade deficit by a small amount, the manufacturing sector (at least in Georgia) has actually grown, consumer confidence has grown despite the president's herranging of the economy because people have accepted times are tough and are adjusting as such.  The panic is simply settling.  This is how recessions (and potential depressions) work.  There's a drop, a panic, an acceptance, and a rebuilding, the end.  The problem right now is all part of the boom-bust cycle (made worse by government tampering) and is only temporary.  However, what is left out of the national discussion is that the fundamentals are not strong, we're not out of the woods yet, we've merely had a good couple of days in the market, which happens, and is not reflective of the economy as a whole. 

A huge reason for the upswing is because of a massive investment rush in health care companies like Humana, mainly because of all the talk about nationalizing health care, Keynesians are rushing to the trough to make their money, and Misesians (i.e. smart people) are putting their money in to capitalize and then get the hell out as soon as the nationalization of it is eminent.  Note the fact that financial stocks were plummeting when there was talk of nationalization, now that nationalization has been dismissed as an inevitablity and the banks have reported (shocker!) a profit, investment in them began inching up again.  Barring all of this in mind, there is no way that this week's upswing is because of the stimulus plan, and I don't even have to mention that NONE OF THE MONEY HAS EVEN BEEN SPENT YET!!!!!

I do have a feeling that the market will plummet if this card-check nonsense is passed, and it will begin tanking again once the tax-hikes and all the spending kicks in.  China, (the communists!) are sounding ever more and more capitalist when they tell us to stop spending and announce their squeemishness towards buying up more treasuries (they're actually saying "buying the US's debt" now).  And all of this is just a prelude to what will happen to us once that debt comes home to roost.  Europe and Asia are already talking about wanting a one world-currency, which usually makes folks on my side of the spectrum flip out but let me tell you: we already have a one world-currency--the US dollar.  Remember Bretton Woods?  Making the US Dollar the base currency for trade?  That's what a one world-currency is!  A trade currency!  That, I'm okay with, truthfully.  With the countries keeping their own currency based on a central currency held in reserves (by the countries' own banks, I'm NOT okay with a global central bank) and used strictly for trade.  The bad news on this is: bye-bye US Dollar.  The air would spew out from under it and the dollar will crash and America will be forced into having a (I know this is a stretch) real currency backed by either goods or gold.

Anyway, back on track!  An economy is more than just a stock market, and a fundamentally strong market can have a low amount of trading or no trading at all.  Third-world countries have economies, smaller countries have economies, and they don't trade on the floor of any stock exchange!  An economy is anywhere where there are human transactions and an exchange of goods, whether you're trading ducks, grapefruits, or dollars, it's an economy--and a fundamentally strong economy can exist without a stock exchange.  Smaller "emerging market" economies are fundamentally stronger than America's economy.  Hong Kong's economy is more fundamentally sound.  Singapore's economy is more fundamentally sound.  Switzerland's economy is more fundamentally sound.  China's economy is more fundamentally sound.  And these are all by capitalist standards!  The thing is that America's GDP is bigger than all of these countries' GDPs (our GDP is calculated rather fraudulently, by the way, wait for it) and more stocks are traded on our stock exchange floors than in these other countries but they are stronger economically.  You know why?  It's because they're producers, we are consumers.  We have become the Soviet Union.  More communist than China.  Surprised? 

An economy's strength cannot be judged by the GDP alone.  Our GDP measures all transactions in America, including the exchange of goods from foreign companies and excludes the exchange of American goods in foreign countries!  The GDP used to simply measure how much money American companies made; how much American goods made by American companies had been bought and sold domestically or foreign.  It doesn't measure that anymore.  The GDP now merely calculates our consumerism.  How much money we've spent as a market rather than how much we've earned as a nation.  So truthfully, the front of America having the strongest economy in the world is nothing less than a farse.  Strip away the fraudulent GDP, the artificially maintained inflation, and the picture becomes rather grim.  No longer do we see a robust nation that capitalism built, but a lie that socialism destroyed.  We are the world's biggest debtor, using the fact that our dollar is "needed" in order for other countries trade to force them to prop us up as we consumed whatever they created.  For what?  For "rights" that socialists and progressives insisted everyone was entitled to.  The truth is that we're a couple ammendments (speech, arms) shy of pure communism, and the government is working on those.

So this is the big joke, people.  We, the country founded on classical liberalism, free markets, and liberty (which means freedom from government) find ourselves in a country that sees our once inalienable rights as more arbitrary annoyances to be overcome.  The nation that fought the tyranny of communism adopted its principles in order to be "inclusive".  We allowed ourselves to get fat off of our newly defined consumer-capitalism where we take and take, never wanting to be bothered to earn.  Now, we wake up in chains.  Enslaved for the rest of our lives and for future generations.  What was once the freest country on Earth is now the least free.  We've been destroyed by our own mismanagement, miseducation, and misunderstanding of the very system of capitalism we pioneered.  That's the great joke.  How do you feel about the punch-line?

I write this as a staunch classical liberal and a minarchist.  A writer who believes in freedom and liberty as my highest of values.  Wont for those is what guides my decisions, my economics, my views, and forces me to defend the values of this country.  I refuse to let a good day on the DOW or a bromidic speech by some man-boy president guide what I know is right.  They say that stimulus is necessary.  Is it?  What is more important?  Security or freedom?  The slaves were secure.  They had housing, food, even medical care all supplied to them by their masters but they still weren't free.  And isn't that the burning desire that is etched through each and every one of the ideas that formed this country?  Whether it be the Articles of Association, the Articles of Confederation, or the Constitution, we all sought freedom from the heavy hand of government control.  We're so obsessed with the banks and the New York Stock Exchange like they're the most important thing America has!  It's not!  We have principles of freedom and liberty.  They're in our book stores!  The very ideas that made this country are available whenever you want in the words of Adam Smith, DeCartes, John Trenchard, Thomas Gordon, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, John Jay, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Patrick Henry, Samuel and John Adams, even Aristotle and Socrates!  The resounding idea that men are made to be free!  Not safe!  Free!  And that it's men, not government that should be free.

We've totally lost this.  This is why I can mourn on a day when the market is up.  I don't care where the DOW or the S&P 500 are at.  They simply measure the value of stocks, not the strength of our economy.  The DOW or the S&P 500 or the NASDAQ are not accurate measures of our economy, but our economy is an accurate measure of our freedom. 

Show me a free people, and I'll show you a prosperous people.

And that's the Real Spit
-WilliamPitt

Today's going to be a busy day, so in order to keep you guys coming back to my page, I decided to transfer an old column that I'm proud of.  I know that this particular column flies in the face of the traditional definition of socialism as state ownership of labor but I felt that that definition didn't do the horrors of socialism proper justice.  I believe, contrary to most, that socialism is not a new idea but, in fact, an ancient one with themes common through many ancient and modern civilizations.  What I describe in this column (as I most conceitedly call it.  I guess "blog" isn't as dignified a term as I'd like) is what could be called a newer, more general definition of socialism, tying together the common traits and themes of many political ideas.  In fact, many may believe that what I now deem as "socialism" is what Ayn Rand would spitefully refer to as "collectivism".  I do agree with Ms. Rand, however, "collectivism", to me, is a culturally philosophical dogma, not a socio-economic system.  My definition of socialism grants the ideas and epistemology of collectivism the gift of a system of policy rather than just a politico-cultural movement within the "body politic".  It takes the metaphysical and invisible and grants it an objective movement whose devastation can be calculated and studied.  My definition of socialism is any form of government that places social issues over individual and economic freedom.  Which I find much more accurate.  By the way, there are a couple changes.  Hope you enjoy.  Godbless!

-WilliamPitt 3/7/09

If there ever was a catchphrase for the 2008 presidential election, it was “maverick”, followed closely by “socialism”. Truthfully, a lot of people heard it, repeated it, and called Obama a socialist (including myself), but would appear baffled when asked: "what kind of socialist is he?" To the surprise of many people, socialism isn’t a form of government, it (like capitalism) is a socio-economic system that takes many forms depending on the recent history, the culture, and the location. You have National Socialism (i.e. Naziism), Fascism, Communism, Feudalism, Constitutional Monarchy, and Democratic Socialism, all of which fall into the category of "socialism". Contrary to popular belief, socialism existed long before Karl Marx's wife left him.

So what is socialism? Socialism is a system that places social issues over economic ones and manipulates economics to suit whatever social issues take precedence in a given time or nation. This is why socialism differs from place to place, time period to time period. This is why Italian Fascism was completely different from Spanish Fascism, and they, different from German Naziism, and all three running on anti-Bolshevism, and Bolshevism violently opposing Fascism and Naziism which was, likewise, exclusive to Russia, which is completely different from Chinese Communism. One main idea tying all forms of socialism together is the idea of the importance of social issues (race, class, etc) and the nonsensical economics of public ownership.

In socialism, winners and losers are selected out of the "body politic" to quote Hobbes, and economics are manipulated to accommodate. The only systems of socialism to be successful (if success is to be judged by longevity) are Feudalism and Constitutional Monarchy. The reason these forms have been able to last is because it makes no bones about who the Elite are and why they are the Elite around whom the economics of the nation revolve. It’s because of this totalitarian brute-honesty that they are able to survive, the people below have no hope of getting to the Elite level so they either bow and scrape or simply go about their business.  Granted a Constitutional Monarchy is the more free of the two (England was, at one time, the freest nation in the world, but still not free enough for the Americans), but it still revolves around the same premise of all things belonging to the King or Queen on loan to the People.  Rather than the very American (and capitalist) notion of individuals owning what they earn and loaning it to others as they see fit.

All other forms of socialism tend to be very unstable, shifting leadership and in constant fear of imminent revolution and a new form of government. The reason for that is because all the other forms of socialism (Fascism, Naziism, Communism, Democratic Socialism, et al.) are forms of socialism that rebel against the monarch and giving the power to "the People" (another notion as abstract and impossible as "Royalty".  "The People" don't actually exist.  They're a group of individuals, not a single body of a single mind), which to those forms of socialism means the underdog. These forms of socialism promise instant gratification and power to "the People" and when "the People" never get that gratification, or when "the People" become the monarch, a new revolution begins and the cycle continues (See much of Latin America with their rampant regime changes).

Socialism, in all cases, is totalitarian, but it can be subdivided into two categories: authoritarian and popular. Before I describe authoritarian and popular socialism, allow me to define "totalitarian" since "totalitarianism" and "authoritarianism" tend to merge in the popular mind. Totalitarianism is government that is all-encompassing; as Mussolini said "everything within the State, nothing outside the State". Totalitarianism doesn’t necessarily mean a dictatorship with the mantra of "what I say goes", it simply means that there is no issue that wanders outside the realm of politics. In a totalitarian government, everything is a political issue to be dealt with and solved by the State (money, labor, race, even sex). What divides totalitarianism into the two subcategories of authoritarianism and populism is the leadership.

An authoritarian government has one leader, a dictator or a king appointed by either "the People" or God/bloodline. This leader has absolute and indisputable rule over the body politic and can only be overthrown by death or uprising. This is different in a populist government where the leader calls himself a "president" (like Hugo Chavez or Robert Mugabe) and still holds elections that "may or may not" (if you watch the news) be rigged to favor the president. Social-populist governments tend to rely on pandering and mob-rule, bankrupting their country to remain in power, which is why these countries are so unstable and quite often back-wardly poor.

Philosophically, socialism is also self-destructive and utter gibberish. It was built first on the foundation of Platonist metaphysics, then later Kantian/Hegelian existentialism and pragmatism, which requires a separation from reality and principle. Socialist economics thrives on separating from economic reality for the social want and the whim of "the People". Socialism attempts to mix existentialism with economics which is like mixing oil and water. Economics can't work properly while denying or questioning reality as existentialism does, and existentialism implodes in its own weightlessness when reminded of the reality that economics need. This is apparent in the socialist view of property. Socialism insists that there is no private property when the reality states that there is private ownership. They ask the existential question: "how do you know that that is your property?" and then deny that the deed in your hand exists. It's also obsessed with dealing quickly the issue at hand without thought, approximation, or any kind of objective questioning as to the origins of the issue. (Note all socialist heroes were men of "action" like Mussolini, Hitler, Jackson, Polk, Roosevelt, Guevara, Castro, etc.) Pragmatism drives political expediency and quick (even if temporary) fixes demanded by the mob with the loudest voices and the biggest signs. It has no regard for principle or foundation and actually views the two as a detriment.

Karl Marx took the entire socialism argument into a new plain. Marxism is very different from the other forms of socialism in that pure Marxism is, in reality, anarchy. Marx was a medievalist who was embittered by his aristocratic wife leaving him and his disillusionment with economics as a rather brilliant economist. His books; Das Kapital and The Communist Manifesto laid out his vision of government that sweeps in through fire and revolution, organizes society into communes, and then disappears forever, leaving society back in the dark ages of societal evolution. He envisioned a world without government, rules, commerce, possession, or trade. A world where these small self-sufficient communities organized labor and put all the fruits of the labor into a common pool from which all ate and received supplies in accordance to their need–basically Atheistic Calvinism. Marxism, though it inspired Russian Communism, was a very different vision from Vladimr Lenin or Joseph Stalin who believed government could continue to exist and regulate those communes forcibly, manipulating prices and other market forces to suit their whims. Both Marxism and Communism are an extreme departure from the idea of socialism, but they are the very farthest a society can go to the left; likewise, Anarcho-Capitalism is the farthest a society can go to the right (not Fascism, which floats in the middle).

Allow me to redefine socialism as an economic system that places social issues above economic reality or principle itself. It's the manipulation of economics in order to pander to social prejudices or preferences. America has had many forays into what could be considered socialism, but we are ingrained, as a nation, in a classically liberal, capitalistic foundation so when the Hydra of socialism has reared it’s ugly head in America’s history, be it through the Euro-centric, expansionist, light-feudalism of the southern states in the early national and antebellum periods (the aristocracy anyway, many of the poor in the South were almost proto-libertarian), the progressive movement of the early 1900s, the age of the ever-growing Nation-State in the mid-20th century, it has been rejected at one point or another in favor of capitalism light and individualism until we forget through distant nostalgia just how terribly the socialist experiments worked out.

We hear "right" and "left" spouted off constantly without definition, but to define Right versus Left in the simplest, most modern, and most American way possible, is simply as capitalism versus socialism. What are the differences between the two? Well, one champions classical liberalism, which is laissez-faire economics and individualism with no importance placed upon social issues provided they don’t harm another person’s individual rights; the other champions modern liberalism, which is actually Euro-centric conservatism meaning socially engineered economics and collectivism. What I tend to see in the usual "right vs. left" debates is not the argument between capitalism and socialism, but the argument of social conservatism and social liberalism, both of which are forms of socialism and neither of which pertain to capitalism whose only concern is free-markets and economic freedom for the individual.

Every election, I see things like obesity, environment, health care, welfare, and gay marriage come up and I'm flabbergasted because I wonder: "what place do these issues rightfully have in a classically liberal government?" If we are truly free, then why do we concern ourselves with social issues? If we put too much stock in social issues, we give to one group by the oppression of another group. That is not freedom. This is the reason socialism and social issues in general are detrimental to a free society. If we manipulate economics (which naturally wants to reward those who earn it) in order to perpetuate and prop up social policies, we oppress man's mind and man's strength. And if man truly is a creature of intellect and strength, then any form of government or economics is, by nature, destructive.

I've often wondered why actual liberals like Ron Paul or Barry Goldwater can't seem to win elections while "liberals" like John McCain, Barack Obama, and Lyndon Johnson can't help but win. It's because we are a society obsessed with social issues and pop culture. We demand our government exhibit compassion to those we (temporarily) view as down-trodden. But on whose dime? On whose back do we place the burden? That forgotten soul is the truly oppressed and the true victim of society–the individual. But our society, through the crafty rhetoric of our politicians, seems to think that that man doesn’t exist. As if compassion in itself yields results and funds from thin air. That’s why the Pauls and Goldwaters lose--because the Johnsons, Obamas, and McCains champion the social issues, while the Pauls and Goldwaters don't feel the need to dignify them.

Thus socialism wins elections; however, capitalism–liberty–is stuck only winning hearts and minds.

-WilliamPitt

While perusing the Georgia General Assembly web page, I came across something very interesting that I feel more people need to be aware of and that more states should look in to doing.  The bill, if you'd like to look it up, is HB 430, otherwise known as the "Constitutional Tender Act".  The summary is a little vague, but it reads:


"A BILL to be entitled an Act to amend Title 7 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to banking and finance, so as provide a short title; to provide legislative findings; to define certain terms; to require any bank or lending institution serving as a depository for the state or any department or agency of the state to offer and to accept gold and silver coin for deposit; to amend Title 50 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to state government, so as to provide legislative findings; to define certain terms; to require the exclusive use of gold and silver coin as tender in payment of debts by or to the state; to provide for related matters; to provide an effective date; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes."*

*http://www.legis.ga.gov/legis/2009_10/search/hb430.htm
(If you'd like to read the full bill, you can find it at: www.constitutionaltender.com)

    The reason this is a big deal is because the Georgia State government is taking the advice of Rosland Capital, Gold Line, etc. and investing in real money--gold and silver.  Not even investing, but using this bill to nullify any law on the books that outlaws the use of precious metals as legal tender.  As of right now, a private investor can only invest in gold with dollars as a hedge against inflation and the volatility of the market, he's not able to go to the store and buy anything with that gold, only the worth of that gold in dollars.  By law, the State itself cannot accept or issue gold or silver as legal tender, which is clearly unconstitutional.  In fact, it is explicitly unconstitutional (Article I, Section 10, "No State shall... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts") and the fact that Wilson, Roosevelt, Johnson, and Nixon took such huge steps in outlawing gold as legal tender in exchange for a fiat currency should be enough to squeeze them into the "worst presidents of all time" bin (along with Jackson, Polk, Pierce, Buchanan, Lincoln, Grant, Aurthur, Harding, Truman, Kennedy, Ford, and Carter.  No, none of these names were accidents.)

    The purpose, as stated in the Constitutional Tender Act (CTA henceforth) is to "define certain terms", to "require any bank or lending institution serving as a depository of the state... to offer and accept gold and silver coin for deposit", as well as to "require the exclusive use of gold and silver coin as tender in payment of debts by or to the state", and to "repeal conflicting laws".  In addition to Federal Reserve notes (the fiat currency in question... if you don't know what "fiat" means; look it up), it says that the state is to accept "Gold Eagle" coins (minted as collectors items and gold investment items since 1986; see: www.goldeneaglecoin.com); "Pre-1965 silver" coins (i.e. the face value of silver coins minted before 1965 before the Coinage Act); and "Silver Eagle" coins (the silver counterpart of the Gold Eagle; again, see: www.goldeneaglecoin.com), creating separate accounts for each in Georgia banks that deal with the State.  Those who create a silver, gold, or dollar account with any of the banks will receive the same tender in return when money is withdrawn. 

    Chapter 37 of the bill states that "the Georgia General Assembly finds that...the state shall not make anything but gold and silver as tender in payment of debts" and that the "Federal Reserve (Notes), having no redeeming value in gold or silver coin, shall not be made a tender in payment of debts".  The almost Ron Pauline language of this bill almost gives me goosebumps when they say that the state will only use gold and silver to pay any private or public debt to any person or entity.  They define the value of the coins by the current market value (the current market value for one Gold Eagle is roughly $940 USD) in relation to exchange rates with persons or entities.  This can only point to one thing: circulation.  Gradual, but circulation none the less.

    There is obviously going to be some question about this bill.  "Why switch to using collectible coins as tender?  Do you know how long that's going to take to circulate?"  I agree, yes, it will take a while.  But what it does, is protect the state economy from the continued devaluation of the dollar.  Prices is Federal Reserve notes will rise and rise, while the prices is Gold and Silver tender will drop and drop because the inherent worth of the constitutional tender will remain the same, while our free-floating fiat dollar will continue to devalue as the government prints more and more dollars.  It will take a while to circulate, but all it will take is saving followed by an exchange and you are no longer exposed to the rigors of the plummeting dollar. 

    The reason this bill is so fascinating to me and so important is because a state is actually doing this!  A state is wanting to make a move to eventually get itself off the U.S. Dollar to protect its economy in order to protect a state's wealth.  I can't help but wonder: will other states follow suit?  Will other states push towards getting off the dollar and accepting real tender?  Are the states leaning more towards autonomy rather than dependence?  It'll be a fascinating thing to watch, I'm sure, and I hope the Georgia General Assembly passes this bill and starts a movement by other states to break away from this idiotic Keynesian monster that's looming at our heals hoping to devour us in debt and immeasurable deficits for the sake of saying "we can afford it".

    The truth of the matter is that this house of cards that is our dollar and our monetary system (eerily resembling the Roman monetary system around the time the empire fell), is bound to fall.  After all, what kind of house is a house of cards if there's a hurricane just over the horizon?  When this system and this phony dollar collapses, the country will implode unless there is a monetary back-up plan--and this is that plan we need.  One that will step up and give us a plan of value.  This is not so much an out-and-out rejection of the dollar as it is an insurance policy so that when we got knocked back, we don't simply float of into space, but hit the ground so we can get back on our feet.  We as a nation, have let our monetary policy get out of hand for far too long and we have to take measures to stop it.  Investing and buying gold coins as a personal investment/hedge has been a well-advised plan for a few years now.  The Ron Pauls and Peter Schiffs (the smart investors and economists) have been hunkering down with gold tender for some time now, urging others to do the same. 

    As the price of gold skyrockets due to the demand (which is caused by the scramble of investors to keep themselves safe), our dollar is still on a free fall.  We could very well suffer the same fate as the Weimar Republic, a fate of massive hyperinflation if we don't protect ourselves with gold and silver.  This bill is simply the state doing what the private investor has been doing for some time in order to protect itself, disobeying and nullifying the laws of the Federal Government that prohibit any tender outside of Federal Reserve Notes which is a dollar whose value is determined by credit and debt rather than real intrinsic value. 

    The flaw in a gold standard (to the state) is that you're not able to inflate it freely in order to finance projects to buy votes.  The gold standard demands state discipline and a free private sector which is why small to no government folks such as myself are big fans of it while big to global government folks like our president are so repulsed by it.  There can be no such thing as a free expansion of government with a gold standard, only a free expansion of the private sector in accordance to what gold is mined.  With a gold standard, the economy controls you, you can't control the economy, and the private sector with the gold holds sway over the government rather than the government holding sway over the private sector by the power it has in controlling the money.  With a fiat currency, no man can be free, only a slave.  The gold standard is a policy of freedom.  Which is why the government fears it so much.

    As a European central banker once said long ago; "give me your money, and I'll care not of your laws".


And that's the Real Spit
-WilliamPitt


(Read old entries at: http://williamdavidpitt.bustablog.com

    If you were to freely give your money to what is advertised as a dog training facility and it turned out to not be a dog training facility but a kennel where they simply fed the dogs and kept them in cages; what would you do upon hearing that information?  A sensible person would divest, allocating their much needed funds into something more worthwhile that's honest.  If you wanted to give to a kennel, you'd give to a kennel, right?  Now, what if that company said "well, too bad, you're invested, you can't divest, besides; what about the poor dogs?", and continued to pull an automatic draft from your check every time you got paid?  What would you do then?  File suit?  Of course you would.  So why, I ask you, are we putting up with the sorry state of our public school system?
   
    To provide the reader a little background, I went to public school in Beaufort, South Carolina where my mother is still a teacher and my dad is training to be one himself, so I am very much familiar with the problems in the system.  In fact, the problems are so immense, so irreparable, that I simply say, "what's the use?  Why try getting a dead horse in race?".  Now, I know there will be those who will call me a cynic when it's just the opposite, I have the utmost faith in humanity, (which is why I deem public schools so unnecessary) others will call me a crazy anarchist and an anti-establishmentarian (which, in all actuality, is a great American tradition) as if "conservative", "libertarian", "old-right winger", or "free-marketeer" are too nice of words to pin on someone who wants to deny children education.  However, to be honest, the truth is just the opposite: I want children to be educated, educated to the fullest; and that's precisely why I wish death upon the public school system.

    A writer and "individual anarchist", as he was called, Albert Jay Nock put it best when he said that public schools did not provide education, but training.  He felt (as I do) that education was the seeking of knowledge simply for the sake, and love, of acquiring knowledge.  Education was a choice to Nock, and to fulfill a choice is a privilege, not a right as many modern "liberals" try to claim these days (I put "liberals" in quotations because modern "liberals" are not liberals in a classical sense).  Since education is a choice and a privilege, one's education should be voluntary, therefore, paying for that choice should be voluntary.  Toward the end of his life, Nock espoused a rather cynical view of humanity, believing that most people may as well not even learn how to read being that few people actually do anything worthwhile with literacy.  I don't quite espouse such a belief because, as I mentioned, I am not a cynic, but I do see in many people an utter disregard for any skills learned passed elementary school.

    A big problem with abolishing the public school system is that no one is alive anymore that remembers what it was like before it was established.  The truth is that the local-community schools (paid for by the parents of the children or voluntarily by the local community), private schools, and Christian and Catholic schools provided much better education for those that attended than our modern public schools.  It's also true that private schools have a much better graduation and college rate than public schools because the parents and students take their education much more seriously.  This is because exposing schools (universities and colleges, I'm talking to you too!) to the rigors and risks of the free-market place would ensure better schools, better conditions, and better teachers because the inadequate ones would be liquidated.  Teachers would be paid on merit and quality rather than seniority or rank in the teachers' union; if they're a good school, more people will send their kids there which would enable them to bring down the price and afford them a better budget; that budget, them being a business rather than a government bureaucracy with a set budget will use that money more wisely for (I know, this is crazy) educational purposes and paying the teachers.

    There is also the issue of the parents.  Teachers complain about the uncaring parents almost constantly, to the point that it almost sounds like merely passing the buck.  Believe me, it's not.  Parent involvement in their child's education is a severe problem, and one that the government can never, ever solve if they mandate it, pass legislation, or do anything other than refusing to invest in education any longer, forcing the parents to pay their hard-earned dollars for education, rather than telling them and their children that they have a right and an entitlement to everything under the sun.  It's that air of entitlement that has reduced "education" in this country into a joke.  It started out as a right to education, then a right to misbehave and receive no punishment, then a right to an unearned self-esteem, and now, a right to not care whose money your wasting.

    An argument against me that states that I wish to deny children education would, perhaps be valid, if that was what the children were actually receiving--it's not.  Education, if I may state again, is acquisition of knowledge for the love of knowledge.  Education requires either a love of knowing or a desired goal.  What our public school system provides is the opposite--training for something unknown free of goals or love of anything.  It's an obligation, a duty, not a choice.  Since the State (der Stat to invoke the proper imagery) is incapable at providing or sustaining the right to choice (choice is freedom, der Stat is the apotheosis of freedom), and choice is inalienable to education, der Stat is, by all accounts, incapable of providing education.  What they can provide, however, is training, which is what they try to do with public schools.

    What I mean when I say "training" is mindless indoctrination, not free pursuit of knowledge.  Public schooling doesn't show students the tools for expanding their minds or acquiring skills but conditions them into an attitude and state of mind of cynicism, entitlement, and moral relativism--not exactly a spring-board for the intellect.  It's because of this separation from reality, the laws of nature, philosophy, and epistemology, even ethics that leaves students ill-prepared for life after school and under the delusion that everything, including knowledge should be handed to them.  Granted, that doesn't necessarily mean that every child will be a government stooge and we plunge into a real-life Idiocracy, but the pool of potential great minds is diluted in the process of public schooling.

    Public schools, at the end of the day, have proven (like Social Security) to be possibly the largest malinvestment (as Ludwig von Mises said) in American history.  Being that a malinvestment is irreparable, it needs the legs pulled from under it so it either floats away or collapses in its own weightlessness.  Either one is fine with me, frankly, I don't much care which direction public schools go as long as it's away.  To take my money, by force, to buy legs to prop up a falling institution yelling "I can fix it!" is beyond immoral.  It's like using over-priced duct tape to fix a leaky dike; you can say you fixed it--for now--but what happens when that dike finally breaks?  My ultimate problem with the government's "solutions" is that they don't even bother using duct tape, but scotch tape!  Several billions of dollars of it too! 

    Not only this, but our president now wants to do the same thing the government does to public schools to colleges and universities, and early childhood development.  He's advancing a bill that revokes vouchers for D.C. area kids to attend private magnate schools!  To help people pay for college, he's seeking to nationalize Public Allies--a group he worked for that "trains" people to work for not-for-profits organizations and community activism--as a "boot camp" for college hopefuls between ages 18 and 24.  He wants to nationalize a "zero to five" program that will basically raise kids from the cradle to "prepare" them for public schooling (which sounds kind of Hitler youth-ish to me).  He pushes all of this under the guise of "education" but this is impossible.  Where is the choice?  Where is the pursuit for the sake of love and thirst for knowledge?  Without either of these, it is impossible to be educated!  The public school system has tried this approach of dutied training to no avail, and the grand solution is to expand that approach?  If we want our children to be anything more than trained monkeys, the best course of action is to burn down the entire public school system and use the ashes for something way more useful.  Like fertilizer.

And that's the Real Spit
-WilliamPitt

(Read old entries at: http://williamdavidpitt.bustablog.com)

    Here, in Georgia, the guru of Georgian Conservatism is none other than Neal Boortz, who has written two books on the FairTax, Mike Huckabee won Georgia in the Republican primaries hands-down because he was the only vocal supporter of the FairTax; it's a drastic understatement to say that Georgia is FairTax land, no senator or congressman can hope to get elected unless he supports the FairTax.  The thing is, the FairTax never sat well with me and I've never been able to figure out why.  The very basic premise (after all, Neal Boortz has written two books on the subject) is that the IRS be abolished (I'm all for that), along with it goes the income tax (all for that too), the nullification of the 16th amendment (again, I support it), as well as the abolition of several other taxes, and, finally, the part that doesn't sit well with me: an astronomical consumption tax to be the government's only real source of revenue.  On the surface, it sounds reasonable, right?  I mean, finally!  A tax plan that will beat back governmental growth and force it into the constraints that the Constitution provided.  Unfortunately, it makes some assumptions about government that are quite naive.

    Since the 1920s, we have worked very hard to undermine the strength of a production economy to replace it with a consumer economy.  Rather than save and produce, Americans spend and serve--not exactly the formula for a strong economy.  We are currently seeing the unraveling of that entire system of loan-and-spend economics that was the result of our obsession with fairness and our apparent trepidation towards laissez-faire.  Our government has built institutions and systems to insure that we have plenty of money to spend whenever we want to spend it on whatever we want to spend it.  This built a culture that gives us money that, in essence, is valueless because there is an endless supply of it carrying no intrinsic value.  The Great Producer has become the Great Debtor, and this is why I fear the FairTax.

    The FairTax assumes, in correctly, that a lone consumption tax will discipline and irresponsible government by restricting its income (or in the government's case: outtake) to a single source.  And what of it?  What if their revenue is reduced to one source?  Why, the irresponsible government we have will try their best to suck every droplet of water from that stone by encouraging rampant consumerism at all costs--almost to the point of mandate--in order to fill its coffers and fund the very institutions that have destroyed our economy and will continue to undermine it even with the FairTax.

    What if the FairTax is passed?  What if, by some strange miracle, Saxby Chambliss actually passes the FairTax proposal (probably by pretending it's some kind of sweeping welfare initiative)?  What happens now?  Well, the government, obviously, would downsize a couple things here and there, including the IRS, to make room for the new budget, but they would leave a couple government departments like the Federal Reserve and they're business-regulatory arms, because, obviously, we'd still be shaky in the knees about laissez-faire.  What would they do with these?  Well, to put it plainly, they'd destroy the country; and rather rapidly.

    They wouldn't cut too much, so they will be short in the budget, so what will they do?  That's where the Federal Reserve will come in.  The Treasury Dept. will give them debt in the form of Treasuries to sell to other countries and they'll get the printing presses running, printing dollars upon dollars and keeping inflation down artificially, actually merely delaying it.  Now that the government's budget is dictated by mere consumption, thereby mostly excluding savers from paying a lot of taxes, they'll need to get people spending even more to fill their belly and to at least keep face to foreign investors in the dollar.  Further inflation of the currency will be the first step in order to put the money out there that they can get back through that consumption tax; the effects of that inflation would be delayed as it usually is.

    That, they'll accomplish with the same methods they used in the past to force unwise loans in order to pump-up whatever bubble was most suitable to their short-term political gains.  They'll build up the capability of the FDIC to insure more bank assets per account, get the Attorney General to threaten investigation (as Janet Reno did) on banks that refuse to make ludicrous loans, tell the SEC to look the other way, and continue to allow Fannie and Freddie to do their thing, creating more debt to sell to the world market.  Yes, exactly what they did to cause this economic collapse, but ten-fold.  The reason we have the mixed (NOT free-market) economy we do, is because this government, in need of control, is incapable of living within a budget, it needs more and more money, going after more and more of the GDP and brokering as much debt as possible in order to borrow money it could then turn around and use to further the agenda that threatens the very foundation of our country.  Taking away more sources of government revenue, would only make this government more desperate for a cheap, and unearned buck.

    The only way that the FairTax would work was if the FDIC, the SEC, the Federal Reserve, and every other commercial-regulatory arm of the government went away with the 16th amendment and the IRS.  Being that the government is so very good at scaring us about the rigors and risks of laissez-faire and actual free-markets, they would never allow those to be abolished, though they rightfully should anyway.  I mean, this is a government that seizes control and refuses to let go no matter what damage their control does.  A world without an income tax is also a world without regulation on business and anti-trust "laws", and oh, what a day that would be.

And that's the Real Spit
-WilliamPitt

http://williamdavidpitt.bustablog.com