Colorful Rag

GEORGE SOROS SUPPORTS HIGHER TAXES ON RICH; HOW NICE OF HIM!

2012-02-13T22:29:00.000+08:00

Insights, indeed, from a Sith Lord.

I saw George Soros on Fareed Zakaria’s CNN show tonight.You have got to laugh when hearing the moronicity coming out of their mouths.Fareed going on about how socially concerned Soros is, and Soros welcoming thepraise, adding to such praise even. Look, I’m such a philanthropist, if only all richpeople were like me, poverty would be eradicated, blah blah.

Can Soros really claim that his philanthropy and taxesare more than what he receives in bailouts/crony deals/central bank ‘puts’?

THE BENEVOLENCE OF DELUSION, OR THE DELUSION OF BENEVOLENCE

I have a hard time believing anyone could be so stupid orwicked, so I’m guessing he’s just plain deluded. Soros equates the health ofhis crony investments to the well-being of society, so it’s no wonder he feelsso noble about being the beneficiary of bailouts. He very well knows that ifthe US government goes bankrupt, his companies will go under as well, so it’sno wonder he supports the call for the rich to ‘pay their fair share.’

This is where your taxes go!

Aside from his false charity, it’s just downright badeconomics to believe that giving more money to the institution that caused thiscrisis in the first place (government) is going to help matters.

WHY LISTEN TO THEM?... ARE YOU A MORON?!

George Soros and Warren Buffett try to portray themselvesas different from the rest of the insanely rich cronies in the financialsector, by citing how charitable they are, and by reciting platitudes about howthey want to distribute more wealth to the poor. Don’t believe it. It’s no coincidencethat they’re among the richest of the rich, while the economy is in thedoldrums ― they are part of the problem.

The rich-poor divide can be narrowed, indeed, but a majorpart of such an achievement will require the opposite of higher taxes and increased government control overpeople’s lives. The first step to recovery is a removal of political privilege,which has poisoned the financial sector and along with it the ‘real’ economy.

WHITNEY HOUSTON DIES AT 48; IS SELF-LOVE REALLY ‘THE GREATEST LOVE OF ALL’?

2012-02-12T17:22:00.001+08:00

Ah, growing up in the 1980s.

Give them a glass of milk...

Details are still hazy as to what caused Whitney Houston’sdeath, but I would like to touch upon her admitted drug problem in any case. It’snotable to me in connection with one of her early hits, ‘The greatest love ofall,’ whose lyrics [new tab] are a rare phenomenon in pop music: a nod to ‘the virtue ofselfishness,’ a term popularized by Ayn Rand.

You would think that someone singing about developingself-esteem early on in a child would be able to face the hardships of famewithout developing addictions. But apparently, “learning to love yourself” wasnot enough to keep Houston out of rehab.

I admit that my depiction of events is quite simplistic,and only the person themselves, if anyone at all, can understand what theyhave gone through. But my main point is that it is quite easy to sing aboutself-love (not a euphemism); it’s another thing to direct one’s energies in ahealthy, holistic manner.

BEING SELFISH AND KEEPING FOCUS

When one reads Ayn Rand’s ‘selfish’ heroes who succeedagainst the establishment, this can serve as inspiration for accomplishingdifficult feats in one’s life.

I know that ‘The fountainhead’ helped me, in howeversmall a way, conquer a mini-crisis I was facing at the time I read the book.Sometimes, when being driven to do something unexpected or unsettling, you haveto drill in yourself, mantra-like, “I have to be selfish here, I have to be selfish...”

However, the desire to satisfy one’s self may lead one tolose focus as to what it is that one actually wants. One might do a ‘selfish’act simply to make a statement, rather than to accomplish something good. Toinsist on acting for one’s self doesn’t automatically mean that one’s decisionswill be healthy.

Being ‘selfish’ may even indicate a reluctance or fear toexpand one’s worldview. This is a prelude to ‘capital consumption’ of one’smind, that is, an atrophying in mental staleness.

WHY THE SELFISH-UNSELFISH DUALISM AT ALL?

Man is a social being. But seeking self-interest shouldnot be looked down upon. Actually, the problem is in supposing a dichotomy atall between ‘selfish’ and ‘unselfish’ acts. In truth all acts could not be forother than the self. What varies is the timeframe on which such selfish actsare based.

(Private property and free trade have developed alongsidehumanity’s lengthened timeframes for action. The mentality of acquisition-by-forceas exemplified by the state, is a vestige of mindless savagery.)

It is often easier to give in to other people’s wills ―being ‘altruistic’ ― even as this slowly eats away at your potential. It’stougher to summon enough ‘capital of will’ to assert one’s long-termvaluations.

FINAL REMARKS

To shun society hinders interactions by which oneotherwise attains self-growth.

What is stultifying is not so much doing things ‘forothers,’ but rather the notion of an external duty to do so, of acting againstone’s longer-term evaluations.

(As we know, ‘duty’ is often cited as a pretextfor state expropriation of private property.)

In the process of discovering and realizing one’s values,one must be wary of defying for the sake of defying, in ways that hinderfruitful ‘socially-oriented’ endeavors, or defying out of a narrow view as towhat constitutes one’s happiness.

It would be careless to judge Whitney Houston’s characteron the little that I know, but her death at 48 years old can serve as a reminder that consciousrecognition of one’s worth is only the first step in a long road to self-actualization.

THE PHILIPPINES AND COLOMBIA: SOME OMINOUS PARALLELS

2012-02-09T00:48:00.000+08:00

The own-goal that cost Andre Escobar his life.

I just watched ‘The two Escobars’ (2010) [new tab], a documentary about twoEscobars (naturally) from Colombia who died violent deaths related to the drugtrade in the 1990s. Pablo Escobar was a billion-dollar drug lord, and AndresEscobar was Colombia’s football team captain, most famous for scoring inhis own goal, costing Colombia the 1994 World Cup. Andres was shortly afterkilled in an altercation with mobsters furious at his mistake. These eventsweren’t that long ago; you might have read them in the papers when theyhappened.

SUPERFICIAL GIMMICKS FOR SHOW

It struck me that the Colombian situation related quitewell to the Philippines. Here was a country whose own government was intent oncleaning up its image via superficial means, that is, by aiding in the successof their football team.

Pablo Escobar

I don’t know how it would have mattered if Colombia wenton to win the World Cup, if underlying factors made for a perpetuation ofviolence and instability in the country. But apparently, politicians like then-presidentCésar Gaviria were satisfied with having their football team overshadow harsherrealities, or perhaps they hoped that a champion football team would translateto a growing economy.

In the Philippines, the situation isn’t too far off. Wehave a Department of Tourism which managed to come up with “It’s more fun in the Philippines” [new tab], but what is there to show for such a claim? How long canFilipinos bank on the country’s natural wonders, when much of it remainsundevelopable (due to lack of capital)? Add to that the fact that mostFilipinos are in poverty; conflict rages in Mindanao; journalism is anespecially dangerous profession; traffic sucks; etc.

And then there’s the Manny Pacquiao phenomenon, wherebeing ‘proud to be Filipino’ is supposed to make a difference in people’slives. Heck, there’s that semi-successful football team, the Azkals, behindwhich Filipinos rally. At least Colombia managed to make it past thequalifiers.

SPORTS FUNDING VIA FREEDOM, NOT MOB SUBSIDIES

Traffic. More fun in Colombia!

The success of Colombia’s football team is attributed to fundingby Pablo Escobar, a football fanatic. After Pablo’s death, much of thefinancing stopped. Many in the documentary believed that sans drug money,Colombian football was doomed. To me, this is a rather myopic view of thesituation.

With a community largely in poverty, it is only naturalthat people’s priorities will not be recreational activities like sports. Butas prosperity grows, so does demand for ‘non-essentials.’ One would be mistakento believe that it takes coercive funding for programs to succeed.

Football doesn’t need a drug lord benefactor orgovernment subsidies; it needs the growth of capital, which is best achieved byleaving businesses alone to seek ways to satisfy consumers. From this profitmotive comes employment, output and a better standard of living.

Some analysts are bullish on Colombia [new tab], partly due to increasingeconomic freedom in the area. If such freedom and progress are sustained, I’dwager that the country’s soccer program would take off once again.

Similarly, the Philippine government should lay off onfunding sports. It can very well abolish the Philippine Sports Commission, andshould just get out of the way of markets. If a certain sport succeeds, thisshould be on account of consumer preferences, and not the whims and guesses ofpoliticians.

BEAT DRUGS BY HEALTH AWARENESS, NOT CRIMINALIZATION

drugpolicy.org

Like most governments, the Philippine government is on a ‘waron drugs.’ Such a war is futile, even counterproductive. If politicians werereally sincere in stopping the violent operations of drug lords, they wouldstop prohibition.

Who do you think suffers the most when drugs arelegalized? Is it the youth? The mothers?

No, it’s the mobsters themselves, who find their monopolyin jeopardy. They now have to face legit competitors, which brings prices downand makes the business far less lucrative. With competition also comes higherquality and safety standards, and more openness to seek assistance in cases ofaddiction. Whatever horrors society faces by a legalization of dangerous drugs,the alternative, of market capture by violent elements, is always worse.

FINAL WORDS

Stability of a community rests on more than popular memesand celebrity teams. The Philippine situation may not be as bad as what goes onin Latin America, but this shouldn’t lure us into complacency. Alas, it maytake a crisis of some proportion for Filipinos to see beyond cheap gimmickryand ethnocentric diversions.

PIERS MORGAN OWNS RON PAUL; RON PAUL WANTS BRITISH SOLDIERS TO DIE

2012-02-06T18:59:00.000+08:00

A couple of months back, I caught a little bit of MichaelMoore on Piers Morgan. The two loved each other, as they were getting off ontheir own ideas of ‘good capitalism.’

According to Moore, the goodness orbadness of capitalism was in the “attitude” of the businessmen who practicedit. If a businessman was just doing it for the money and didn’t like beingtaxed, he was a ‘bad’ capitalist. However, if he was socially aware, gave tocharities and took joy in the government expropriating his income, he was a ‘good’capitalist. An example of the latter, according to Moore, is Warren Buffett.

It didn’t surprise me when Piers Morgan, in interviewingRon Paul a couple of days ago, dropped the name of Buffett [new tab] as evidence thatgiving to the government was not a bad thing. Here’s a guy, said Morgan ofBuffett, who was begging the government to tax him.

SAVE THE POOR, O GOVERNMENT, BECAUSE ONLY YOU GIVE A SHIT

Let’s assume that Buffett isn’t the politically connectedhoncho that he is. I think that Piers should be encouraged by the fact thatsomeone is willingly being charitable sans government. This would mean that withall these bleeding hearts around such as Piers himself, coercion is not needed afterall for people to aid the less fortunate (not to say that coercion makesconstituents more charitable).

“Attitude” doesn’t make for a political system. I can justimagine Michael Moore lobbying for the legislation of “Right AttitudeCapitalism.” What a truly stupid idea. No, what matters is whether profits arearrived at via political (coercive) or economic (non-coercive) means.

BAILOUTS AT THE EXPENSE OF RECOVERY

And then there was Piers’ claim that bailouts work! GeneralMotors is still around, so the money used to prop up the failing auto giantmust have been used wisely!

Oh no! We must save the expression

‘Kodak Moment’ frombecoming one of irony!

With such logic, the government should have stepped inwhen Kodak went bankrupt a month ago. Of course, such a bailout would have beento the prejudice of consumers whose preferences in digital photography werebetter satisfied by Kodak’s competitors.

Or does Piers think that the competitors of GM and Kodak, not to mention other sectors, have no capacity to create jobs? That the government alone knows or knows bestwith regards to job creation and productivity?

THE NEW ‘STIMULUS’: HEAD IN THE SAND

Piers was at his most pathetic in his attempt todiscredit Ron Paul when he cited the drop in the rate of unemployment from 8.5% to8.3%, which to Piers showed that Obama was on the right track. And when RonPaul explained that the drop was a result of statistical wizardry (lowering thenumber of people counted in the work force, by 1.25 million), Piers seemedoutraged at this party-pooper who refused to escape from reality. How couldyou, Piers appeared to imply, don’t you know that economies run on confidence andgood spirits?

Are we then to believe that if the government fudged thenumbers so as to bring unemployment down to 1%, the joy felt by people wouldspur people to prosperity and overcome the truth?

RON PAUL HATES BRITISH, POLICEMEN

You mean the impending war on Iran is about OIL?!

I wouldn’t be surprised to see Ron Paul’s ironicstatement, about letting British soldiers die in place of American soldiers,being taken out of context so as to make him appear like a cold-heartedisolationist who hates British people like Piers Morgan. Of course, Ron Paulwas just trying to express how wrong it was to place a duty on any particular citizens,Americans in this case, for the sake of maintaining the US’ role of ‘policemanof the world.’

It is truly wondrous that the Obama administration isable to scare the population into supporting another war, just nine years afterthe failed Iraq war (which is still going on) began. The same arguments, andthe same tactic ― striking fear ― are used, and effectively.

I recommend for you to read Doug Casey’s recent conversation about Iran [new tab].

ABORTION

Ron Paul was weakest in his argument against abortion, ashe resorted to old talking points, but Piers’ argument, that abortion was anact of liberty, was worse. Considering that he thinks that violating one’sproperty rights is in keeping with another’s ‘rights’ to education, healthcare, etc., it’s no surprise that Piers believes that a mother is ‘free’ toharm a human fetus.

FINAL REMARKS

Piers Morgan would fit right in with the Jon Stewart clip [new tab] of mainstream media blatantly ignoring Ron Paul’s presence in polls. I myself have heard Piers enumerate the GOP candidates to the exclusion of Ron Paul. You’d think this meant Ron Paul was such a small presence, but I have never seen Piers sodisoriented and way over his head, not to mention biased against his guest.

Libertarianism. Where being consistent

is not necessarily a bad thing!

We need not suppose that Piers has puppet masters pullinghis strings and telling him how to discredit Ron Paul (“Make him look cruel,but give him some token points for being a family man”). It does seem thatPiers believes the stupidities he defends.

To Piers Morgan, consistency in views is merehard-headedness and inflexibility to changing times. Indeed, if someone startsoff making careless opinions based on what is fed to them by the media, itwould be foolish to be obstinate.

But if someone arrives at ideas which, although notperfect, remain unchallenged by better paradigms, is it really a fault to beconsistent?

RELIGION, THE STATE, AND THE ADVANCE OF THE HUMAN MIND

2012-02-05T18:46:00.000+08:00

Outline:

Part I

Collectivism

Nationalism and the ‘closed-bible’ outlook

Being ‘chosen’ is isolationism

Part II

Primitive bloodlust and the state as keeper of order

Prohibition and legislation never make for change

Part III

Scripture as political propaganda

Who hears the voice of God? Politicians of course

Was God a monarchist?

The voice of God passes to the heirs

Christianity: a new ethics

Part IV

Faith

The Bible as myth

Contra Bible positivism

Final remarks

***

PART I

COLLECTIVISM

In religion, particularly Judaism and Christianity, a collectivistic attitude manifests itselfin different ways.

In the Bible, the works of numerous authors overseveral centuries are treated as a single ‘good book’ with a supposed singular Godtheme.

This is to the prejudice of the authors and prophetswhose works are complete in themselves. Imagine J.K. Rowling being lumpedtogether with Stephen King by future readers, in a book called ‘The 21^st-centuryfiction book,’ and you can begin to realize how ridiculous is this ‘bookcollectivism.’

The books that comprise the Bible are so varied in termsof style and substance, not to mention quality. David’s psalms suffer in theirbeing associated with other books that chronicle in pedantic fashion suchboring genealogies of no spiritual significance.

NATIONALISM ANDTHE ‘CLOSED-BIBLE’ OUTLOOK

To imagine that ‘The Word of God’ or ‘The Gospel of theLord’ are limited to works of several tribes who lived in a rather smallsection of the world, is a folly of the ethnocentric, and makes for staleness.

Cary Grant, a premiere figure

in the 19th-century

transcendentalism

movement

200years ago, Ralph Waldo Emerson lamented the attitude of many Christians inbelieving that the time of ‘divine inspiration’ has come and gone long before:

With each new mind, a new secret of nature transpires;nor can the Bible be closed, until the last great man is born. ― ‘Uses of greatmen,’ from Representative men

BEING ‘CHOSEN’ ISISOLATIONISM

A more obvious display of collectivism is the idea ofbeing a ‘chosen people,’ where everyone else is a Philistine. How can tradeprosper and expand when the idea of being chosen over others is taken to heart?

Pharaoh was a villain, not because he practiced slavery. Slavery was socially acceptable at the time, even by Jews. No, Pharaoh was a villain because he was not an Israelite.

Today, as Judaism and Christianity are practiced all around theworld, the idea of being chosen has shifted from one concerning race, to oneconcerning creeds ― still a collectivistic, divisive attitude.

But actually, by the time of Jesus’ ‘Good Samaritan,’ theJewish notion of being ‘chosen’ had begun to lose ground. That the Gospel’sphilosophy is so different from anything previous just emphasizes the varietyof views expressed in the many books we generalize as the Bible: another pointagainst book collectivism.

***

PART II

PRIMITIVEBLOODLUST AND THE STATE AS KEEPER OF ORDER

What did the preacher mean by saying that the good aremiserable in the present life?... The legitimate inference the disciple woulddraw was, -- ‘You sin now; we shall sin by and by; we would sin now, if we could;not being successful, we expect our revenge to-morrow.’ ― Ralph Waldo Emerson, ‘Compensation,’from Essays, First Series

Considering that God punishes disobedient folk withhorrible deaths or an eternal afterlife of misery, is it so hard to understandwhy the initiation of violence on others in the name of morality is soprevalent in society today? That the monopoly on arms known as government is turnedto as solution to supposed ‘market failures’?

PROHIBITION ANDLEGISLATION NEVER MAKE FOR CHANGE

To believe that reform or justice are meted out throughcoercion is simply bad psychology. Coercive prohibition on anything, even murder, never alters attitudes; it merely modifiesbehaviors only so that such appalling attitudes manifest in other forms ofbehavior.

This principle helps us understand why top-downapproaches (legislation as means of ‘change’), central planning, and evennagging, are ineffective.

Yogi Paramahansa Yogananda speculated

that Elijah and Elisha were previous incarnations

John the Baptist and Jesus, respectively.

Far out!

Social change occurs via evolution of mentalities, withany corresponding legislation being merely indicative and not causal of suchchange.

(For libertarians rooting for Ron Paul, their attentionshould be not so much on his being elected as on the drastic altering ofmindsets that would make Ron Paul electable.)

As it is, even present criminal elements as most manifestin the state are a factor in the maturing of individuals in a yet-adolescentspecies.

***

PART III

SCRIPTURE AS POLITICALPROPAGANDA

In my grown understanding of political economy, much ofthe Old Testament, in particular the two Kings books, reads like politicalpropaganda. Makes you wonder if campaign speeches and commercials of today willend up as scripture 3,000 years from now.

Let’s consider some of the BS the people back then weremade to swallow by their leaders.

WHO HEARS THEVOICE OF GOD? POLITICIANS OF COURSE

For one, the voice of God is supposedly heard by only aselect few: politicians. And given that it’s God speaking and sanctioningwhatever genocidal acts are committed by kings, everyone else should take heed,lest they be struck by lightning.

WAS GOD AMONARCHIST?

How brilliant was it to envision an ultimate being, ‘God,’dictating his will via coercive leaders. Can a true-blue freedom-lovinganarchist really believe that an all-wise being considered monarchy a viablepolitical system?

THE VOICE OF GOD PASSESTO THE HEIRS

Even political nepotism, ‘keeping it in the family,’ isto be taken as a given. Today, we know how backwards such a view is. In theevolution of humanity over time, the relevance of actual genetic relationsfades, in favor of associating among people according to ideas.

Emphasis on lineages and tribes is yet another mark of primitivismthat ought to be discarded in a society where economic and intellectual capitalare vastly increased.

CHRISTIANITY: ANEW ETHICS

The New Testament clearly perpetuates the father-sontheme, even as in most everything else a revolution in morality begins. Givenprominence in Christianity, is the matter of forgiveness, even to the point ofdenial of one’s organism. ‘Strength’ becomes a matter of humility rather thanobvious shows of political might.

Finally, an excuse to use Bruce Lee in my blog!

Jesus’ ability to craft a more life-responsive system ofmorals in contrast to stale ‘pharisitical’ dogma is like Jeet Kune Do to theJewish ‘Kung Fu’ of the time.

What a scandal was caused by this guy who:

defied written law (“The Sabbath was made forman”);
touted individualism over tribalism (“I am come notto bring peace but the sword”);
found value even in transgressions against one’sperson (“Turn the other cheek”); and
neither condoned nor condemned establishedsinners.

Yet it is too simplistic to suppose that the OldTestament was crude and the New Testament refined. The story of David andGoliath, for example, is an early tale of the power of the mind over brutestrength.

***

PART IV

FAITH

Like Zoolander, we often ask ourselves:

“Who am I?”

Faith will always have a place in our lives. Even withour advanced sciences we could not settle very elementary aspects of ourexistence. Reason can only go so far. We could not know beyond what weperceive.

Kant’s paradoxical ‘antinomy’ of space and time remainsirresolvable. How could we reconcile existence’s seeming infiniteness (becausethere will always have to be something beyond the end), yet necessaryfiniteness (because there must be a limit to everything)?

The fragility of our states of mind is understood inmystical experience, which promises new ways of perceiving life but remains non-conveyableto those who have not had it. We have to concede that all we know is derivedfrom whatever frameworks we have, but frameworks themselves are ever-changingand unique. ‘Ultimate’ knowledge, even of the smallest detail, escapes us.

THE BIBLE AS MYTH

Yet this should not be an excuse for throwing one’s self (takinga ‘leap’) to worship whatever one may imagine to be ‘God.’ The enduring valueof traditional religious literature remains mythical or symbolical, independentof historical phenomena. A more intellectually advanced folk would look toJesus’ life and ministry in the analogical way we look at the creation story,which most of us realize did not occur 7,000 years ago.

CONTRA BIBLEPOSITIVISM

Indeed, ‘faith’ is applicable to a priori matters alone. To ask “Did so-and-so really die for us?” or“Was his mom conceived without sin?” is just as futile and unproductive asfocusing on Newton’s falling apple as opposed to the principles of physics onwhich Newton expounded.

Taking the above in consideration, we understand thepopular quote of “For those who believe, no proof is necessary” more deeply.Faith simply has nothing to do withreason.

***

FINAL REMARKS

What fun!

There’s no getting around that in one’s intellectualdevelopment in the two touchy topics of religion and politics, much of one’spreconceptions must be reassessed, if not utterly abandoned. A willingness todo so has more to do with one’s psychological disposition as opposed to mereintelligence.

However much one succeeds in expanding theirunderstanding, I believe that present unhealthy and inefficient fixations onpast modes of living and thinking will be shed off ― eventually. Short of acosmic or nuclear wipeout that is.

***

The role of religion, an excerpt from my essay collection ‘The new president...’

THE STATE IS WAR; WHY DON’T YOU GET IT?

2012-02-02T21:36:00.000+08:00

War... adds spice to a life of mediocrity.

My exposure to local current events is limited to a fewclips of the stupid Corona impeachment trial, which has been appalling, mytongue-in-cheek remarks [new tab] lastweek notwithstanding.

It’s considered natural by most folks to see executivesof private companies being summoned to the Senate and made to explain the waythey conduct business, e.g. the giving of discounts to certain influentialpeople. Apparently, the government has all the right to harass individuals andthreaten them if they don’t show up in court.

Of course government intrusion isn’t limited to forcedsummons. More significant are the regulations and taxes imposed on the pretextof ensuring ‘a level playing field’ or ‘fairness’ or for the protection of people’s ‘right’to work, to be educated, to receive health care, etc.

NO GETTING AROUND IT

What is so hard to grasp about the fact that the state isfirst and foremost an instrument of coercion, of violence?

Just last week I said [new tab]:

It is with the expansion of the time horizon of Homo Sapiens that free trade and property cameabout. The necessity of killing competitors for the acquisition of a meal waseliminated, in that interactions between ‘foreigners’ became mutuallybeneficial.

He has better ideas, I suppose.

YEAH, BUT...

Yet even when someone concedes that, yes, the state isinherently coercive, what makes them turn to the state as a means of economicredistribution?

Such an attitude can only be sustained when one istrapped in a paradigm of war. In it, one assumes that people can never getalong. The only way things can be settled, the only way that the weak majoritycan get ahead, is by trumping the powerful class via politics.

A NEVERENDING CYCLE OF POOR LOGIC

Ironic how it is precisely via the state that the ‘bourgeoisie’continues to oppress the less well-to-do. But this is not seen by theself-styled proletariat. To them, riches equate to political influence. Infact, such adverse political influence is only possible when a majority isthere to believe that such political influence is necessary for social order.

Moron.

Sans government control, the proletariat/consuming publichave the ultimate say as to the distribution of resources ― you can’t get more ‘democratic’than that.

FINAL REMARKS

Not to say that conflict will be eradicated upon theabolition of governments. But there are private solutions to this: self-defense,and arbiters that compete for public confidence.

One ultimately believes in peaceful interactions amongpeople ― the market, for lack of a more populist word ― or unending war, thelatter justifying the perpetuation of government. The state is war; do you getit now?

APPLE EXPLOITING CHINESE WORKERS? KEEP THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF IT

2012-01-27T23:09:00.001+08:00

Coerced... to wear these crappy blue hats!

I can imagine many an advocate of liberty drawing theline when it comes to having multibillion-dollar companies like Apple payingdirt-cheap wages to workers in China, who have to cope with hazardous,horrendous working conditions.

Yet one’s lamentation of the situation should not equateto more regulations and restrictions on employers.

My suspicion is that these reports are in line with UScongressmen’s push for protectionistic ‘Made in America’ or anti-BPO legislation such as USHouse Bill 3596. But let’s focus on the issue of worker ‘exploitation,’ andwhether government intervention would indeed save poor laborers from their ‘bondage.’

VOLUNTARY LABOR IS NOT SLAVERY

We have to distinguish between slavery, which entails forceddetention and bodily threats, to voluntary labor, even if the latter involves veryunfavorable conditions. My understanding of the situation is that Apple’s Chinaworkers, dealing with next-to-nothing paychecks, have no other optionsavailable to them. Whatever growth China has experienced has not been fast enough to undo the shit that Mao’s and Mao-like policies have wreaked on the population.

So if Apple were prohibited from hiring in the area, orwere coerced via regulations to pay above-market wages and increase safety measures, theseworkers would be left jobless, or less of them accommodated. The current situation may not be pretty, but the consequences of intervention would be worse.

REFUSE TO BUY

Okay that is it, I am not going to buy this

overpriced crap. Not that I ever planned to.

Even as Apple should be free to hire wherever they wantand offer very limited benefits, this does not mean that their customer base orpeople in general won’t be appalled enough to stage a boycott (if the reports are true, that is).

Heck, although iPads,iPhones and iPods are not ‘sulit’ for me to begin with, knowing about how suchproducts are made may give me more reason not to support Steve Jobs’ creations.

It’s like how people can refuse to buy fur coats, knowingthat animals are bludgeoned to death to make them. Or with diamonds, which areoften the product of what would be correctly considered as (government-perpetuated)slavery.

IF GOVERNMENT CAN KILL FOR ‘MORALS,’ WHY NOT ANYBODY?

By preventing the hiring of cheap labor from abroad, thecost of everything goes up, and this makes for poorer living standards ingeneral, which further delays whatever improvement in living conditions can behoped for by poor workers.

The overall adverse long-term consequences of governmentintervention may not be apparent, but the effects are definite. Once you start conceding this or that for the government tostep in, there’s no limit as to the expansion of the state, and the long term is given up altogether.

WHAT IF EVERYONE PLAYED HERO LIKE THE GOVERNMENT?

And why stop at coercion via government law? If coercionis to be accepted on a ‘moral’ basis (even as the initiation of violence isantithetical to morals), what is left to stop just any random citizen fromshooting anyone who refuses to pay for another’s medicine/tuition/subsidy? Whynot murder anyone who is unable to pay higher wages? Why not torture someonewho refuses to sell something at a lower price?

Alas, the acceptance of government in any part of humanaffairs is a step backwards for peaceful civilization. As ‘obvious’ or temptingas it is to seek government to remedy lamentable situations, some ‘cold’analysis may be necessary to prevent meddling from making things worse.

BERNANKE: QE3 ON THE TABLE, AND MARKETS CELEBRATE!

2012-01-26T21:32:00.000+08:00

I just saw on ‘Inside Track’ on Bloomberg that Bernankehas announced that near-zero interest rates were to stay until at least 2014(beyond the earlier 2013 promise), and that QE3 ― where the Federal Reservebuys more of US debt as a means to inject monetary ‘stimulus’ into markets ― is“on the table.”

I laughed out loud at how the three lady news anchors wereso giddy at the ‘shot in the arm’ given to financial markets, as if Lazarus was raised or something. Indeed, indexesare suddenly soaring to year highs. Gold is up $40 an ounce in a matter ofhours!

Is that really all Fed Reserve chairman Ben The Bernank Bernanke had to do to getthe economy back on track? If so:

1. Why couldn’t he have done it sooner? and

2. Why not promise negativeloan rates, and why not until 2030?

Gold’srise does not create wealth, but it does

divert wealth away from destroyers of capital.

The thing is, there is no wealth created. Whycelebrate an increase in your stock prices, when everything else you have tobuy increases in price too?

How long can the Fed keep propping up markets for weeksat a time, with these easy-money announcements?

Even if the Fed no longer increases the moneysupply, there are already trillions and trillions of dollars worth of bank reservesjust waiting to get into the real economy, which will happen when prices continue to rise faster than loan rates, thus compounding price inflation.

No wealth created. More economic destruction coming. Youwouldn’t know it by the smiles on the faces of these sexy mainstream mediadroids!

FIVE REASONS WHY CORONA’S IMPEACHMENT TRIAL IS GOOD FOR THE PHILIPPINES

2012-01-26T21:05:00.000+08:00

Sure looks more fun in the Philippines!

1. It keeps the Senate busy from adding to the governmentmonster via legislation.

2. By seeing how Noynoy!’s hand-picked prosecution team isfumbling and making asses of themselves, it may occur to people that theadministration knows no better than the opposition as to what the countryneeds.

3. With all resources spent on the upkeep of the Senateand on the senator-judges’ robes and whatnot, public resentment can only growas to where their taxes go, and perhaps even that taxes are collected at all.

4. The telecast of the trial, competing with soap operasand infomercials in the afternoon for ratings, may compel other TV stations tocome up with less formulaic and moronic garbage, or at least to save this stufffor the evening.

5. Not really good for the Philippines, but forforeigners: by observing the cast of honorable clowns who run the country, foreignerscan see for themselves that it isn’t quite ‘more fun in the Philippines.’

RON PAUL LOVES SLAVERY AND RACISM ― WHAT A BULLY!

2012-01-25T17:35:00.000+08:00

Paul Rosenberg, writing for Al-Jazeera, had a verycritical piece on Ron Paul the other day. What is it with all these writers suddenlytaking the time to tarnish Ron Paul’s and libertarianism’s reputation? I guessI should be glad that Ron Paul’s ideas are being discussed more than four yearsago, but I will take the time as well to refute some criticisms.

I’ve been doing this the past couple of articles, simplypointing out that it’s an illogically distant leap to suppose that since racismis bad, government should step in to make things ‘right.’ But now I’ll focusmore on the market aspect of the interventions of pro-government moralists.

SLAVERY IS LIBERTY?!

As an aside, Rosenberg claims that the Civil War, infreeing the slaves (actually it didn’t [newtab]), infringed “on the liberty of... slaveholders.” Since when wasenslaving people considered libertarian? This doesn’t jibe at all with the verybasic idea of libertarianism, of not initiating force against another. Thismistake of Rosenberg’s makes it very clear that he’s only thought oflibertarian ideas for maybe like 16 minutes in all his life. You’d think he’dhave had time to shave as well, but anyway.

LEGISLATION AS A CURE-ALL

It also isn’t too strange for Ron Paul to consider MartinLuther King, Jr. and Rosa Parks as ‘heroes,’ while nonetheless rejecting themeans by which racial tolerance was sought, i.e. legislation.

Rosenberg carelessly presumes that people have on-offswitches by which legislators can alter people’s attitudes. All Lincoln had todo was sign an executive order for slavery to die. The Civil Rights Act of 1964suddenly eradicated the Ku Klux Klan. How simplistic can you get?!

ECONOMIC CALCULATION AND THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF ABOLITIONBY LAW

So the reason that these anti-discrimination lawsactually perpetuate discrimination and ill will among people is that theydistort market preferences. I know that that doesn’t sound heartwarming at all,but think of it: how could a customer or employee manifest their preferences ―including their distaste for bigotry ― when all companies are required underpain of the law to not discriminate?

What happens is that even bigot businesses remainpatronized even by an anti-bigot populace who couldn’t tell that all the while,resentment among the bigots is being compounded rather than reduced by suchaffronts to their liberty. When ‘anti-discrimination’ is coerced, consumers areunable to provide their anti-bigot feedback by which bigoted companies wouldhave lost out to competitors.

Whereas without legislation in this regard, where a freemarket flourishes, it will be evident that bigotry is bad for business. Suchdiscrimination would have to be shed off if a bigoted businessman were tosurvive. The people, his customers, will have spoken against suchdiscriminatory practices. Hampering the manifestation of such preferences willonly delay changes in people’s attitudes to one of tolerance and appreciationfor other social groups.

‘ANTI-DISCRIMINATION’ DELAYS SOCIAL EVOLUTION

I think it isn’t that far out to suppose that the term ‘globalization’would have become a buzzword a few years earlier, were it not foranti-discrimination laws. It was the increase of trade and the ensuing increasein competition that made the very notion of ‘race’ a nonfactor in the hiring ofemployers and serving of customers (Filipinos who work abroad or in callcenters are beneficiaries of such an expanded outlook).

From blogs.smithsonianmag.com

In fact, ‘race’ is only an abstraction. The only ‘race’there is is the human race, even as we continue to generalize people accordingto certain characteristics. Everyone has some‘hispanic,’ or ‘black,’ or ‘white,’ or ‘oriental’ elements in their DNA. Humanevolution itself, with its male-female dynamic, makes variety inevitable, where‘racial purity’ is impossible in any technical sense.

But the spreading of awareness of this could not comeabout through violence on persistent bigots.

THANKS, GOVERNMENT, FOR TELLING ME THAT MURDER IS WRONG

Rosenberg likens bans on employment discrimination tolaws against murder:

Just like laws against murder, it infringes theliberty of bullies. And that's precisely what justice is: the triumph of rightover might.

Let us pretend for the sake of argument that we can liken discrimination, which involes no property violations, to murder. Let us also forget that murder, like enslaving, is not an act of liberty in the general libertarian sense.

Rosenberg is giving the impression that it is only on account oflaws against murder that murder is thwarted. In fact, all laws are at bestindicative of a society’s moral attitudes; laws themselves do not make forchange. It isn’t by virtue of a law against killing that people don’t shoot orstab each other on sight. It is rather an awareness among people that there arebetter ways to deal with one another.

It is with the expansion of the time horizon of Homo Sapiens that free trade andproperty came about. The necessity of killing competitors for the acquisitionof a meal was eliminated, in that interactions between ‘foreigners’ becamemutually beneficial.

ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LAWS ARE A ‘PROHIBITION’ OF SORTS

In a hypothetical society where murder is sociallyaccepted, would anti-murder laws have any effect? All that would happen is a ‘blackmarket’ will emerge, untouched by state authorities, perhaps even enhanced andattaining a monopoly of sorts in the ‘murder industry.’

This isn’t too far-fetched. Look at US Prohibition onalcohol in the 1920s.

Anti-discrimination laws do not promote tolerance. Racismwill continue to persist until it is rendered obsolete by free trade (which wedo not have at present).

FINAL WORDS

Paul Rosenberg is yet another writer appalled by ideas offreedom, who thinks that morals are automatically excluded. That were it notfor a benevolent government, private individuals (who elect the government)would let the poor starve to death.

Isn’t it just as possible ― actually much more so, in myopinion ― that a free people, secure in their right to property, would provideassistance to the less fortunate? And that a government, having expropriatedproperty from their rightful owners, would impoverish the poor by theirineptness and apathy? After all, aren’t violent people, who use tools ofviolence such as the police, more likely to have no compassion for others? Why isn’tthis in the realm of possibilities among modern liberals?

A LOT of brainwashing, has gone into making peoplebelieve that violence and centralization are necessities for, rather than anathema to, social order. Inaddition, we still have a remaining proclivity for collectivism in ourpsychologies. So I really don’t know how effective my arguments will be inchanging mentalities.

But at least if a more intellectually advanced human inthe future were to discover this article, I’d be glad for them to know thatduring the adolescence of the species, there were already some ‘mutations’ thatknew somewhat better than the rah-rah-government herd.

And so I continue writing.

***

Related article: Fil-Ams win racial suit; a hollow victory over discrimination

WARREN BUFFETT ON TIME™ MAGAZINE: CRONY ECONOMICS FROM A ‘1%-ER’

2012-01-24T16:07:00.000+08:00

Google ‘buffett crony’ [new tab]

Warren Buffett seems to think that just because he’s oneof the richest people in the world, he can defy economic principles withfluffy statements.

Indeed, TIME™’s January 23, 2012 cover article (‘The optimist’ [new tab]) is pretty much a fluff piece that further cements Buffett’s reputationas a selfless philanthropist. In actuality, he contributes nothing worthwhile tothe discussion on America’s and the world’s political economy.

It appears that he is sincere in his convictions, butalas, self-deception is a critical component in deceiving others and gettingone’s way. Such self-deception is not necessarily bad, except that governmentis Buffett’s tool of acquiring wealth.

And when I say ‘wealth,’ I mean not just monetary wealthbut acclaim and prestige, the thrill of being on a moral pedestal.

WHAT A MODEST HOUSE! ERGO, GOVERNMENT IS GOOD!

Sincerity and a taste for simplicity go a long way.

Buffett’s inclination towards (relative) frugality is astrong bullet point under which modern liberals rally. From the premise of “Youcan get by with less consumption and simpler lifestyles,” they want us to jumpto the conclusion that “coercive monopoly = effective charity.”

Government is never called a coercive monopoly though. Ifit were, people ― including the politicians and paid hacks themselves ― maybegin to realize that the state is nothing more than a very established band ofthieves.

The article’s writer Rana Foroohar lends a helping handby speaking of “Darwinian capitalism,” and we’re supposed to believe that laissez faire and not cronyism is whathas brought about income disparities.

Let’s take a look at several choice fluffy statementsfrom Buffett.

GOVERNMENT AS CUSHION TO THE LESS FORTUNATE

With the Obama nixing of the Keystone pipeline,

at least the Canadian oil will now be handled

by such a great lover of mankind.

“We need a tax system that essentially takes very goodcare of the people who just really aren’t as well adapted to the market systembut are nevertheless doing useful things in society.”

Some things aren’t necessarily paid for with money.People exchange ideas and sentiments all the time without receivingmonetary compensation. In that sense, a lot of what is ‘useful’ is not coveredby the monetary system.

However, whenwe are talking about economic goods, money and prices are precisely the meansby which ‘usefulness’ is determined. Is the market system necessarily disadvantageousto the less entrepreneurial? In the sense that they may not afford moreexpensive goods and services, yes. But does this mean other more affordablealternatives are not available? Or that charitable entities are barred fromcollection and distribution?

Why should we assume that government, acting as amonopolistic charity at best, is more effective than charities competing forthe hearts and minds of the more materially fortunate? If we are to appreciatefreedom even by a single degree, we would conclude that competition is moreviable than monopoly, regardless of sector.

BUFFETT’S CHARITABILITY IS A TESTAMENT TO VOLUNTARY TRADE

Unlike his movie counterpart, Buffett

has yet to learn tolet go ―

of government privilege that is.

“The money itself is all going to charity.”

So Buffett says about what’s going to happen to all hiswealth when he dies. It sounds like sourgraping to point out the tax deductionshe gets from all his benevolence, or how high tax rates weaken his competition.I myself would like to believe he’s sincere. Yet this doesn’t mean he’s tradingall his billions for nothing.

The whole principle of monetary exchange is that onederives more satisfaction from a non-monetary thing relative to certain unitsof money. What non-monetary thing can Buffett be getting? A clear conscience?Moral superiority? A ticket to heaven? Being able to put free-market advocatesin their place? I don’t think even Buffett knows. But one thing is certain: hefeels good about what he’s doing, and notwithstanding his being a crony, it’s avoluntary transaction.

Just because money isn’t everything doesn’t mean thislesson has to be taught by elected thugs.

BAD PHILOSOPHY, WORSE METHODOLOGY

“I find the argument that we need lower taxes to createmore jobs mystifying, because we’ve had the lowest taxes in this decade andabout the worst job creation ever.”

As if these are the only two factors to consider instudying an economy. Is it then logical to state that low taxes -->unemployment and high taxes --> low unemployment? The utter disregard ofactual conditions in the world, in particular, the completely corrupt bankingsystem, is just plain careless.

And has anyone ever advocated low taxes and deficit spending to lower unemployment?...Come to think of it, Keynesians love deficit spending. Keynesianism is aparadigm in which article writer Foroohar herself and most economists, including advisors topolicymakers, are hopelessly immersed.

RHETORIC WITHOUT LOGIC

“It’s like [what] Martin Luther King said. We aren’ttrying to change the heart. We’re trying to restrain the heartless.”

Even I’m amazed at the catchiness of the statement.

And how exactlyare such ‘heartless’ people to be restrained? The how is so important, yet do-gooders are so quick to look automaticallyto government to do such restraining.

What about guilt trips? Boycotts? Shame campaigns? Eventhese would be better than threatening a person’s life as a means of gettingthem to surrender their property.

Yet I wouldn’t advocate even these. One person’senjoyment of wealth does not necessarily make for another’s suffering.

Disparity in resources, or for that matter the lack of opportunity tointeract without suffering prejudice, is compounded when the processes by whichwealth is created are hindered so as to favor the politically privileged.

Being wealthy does not necessarily mean one oppressesothers. Such oppression can only happen when mentalities are still so immatureso as to support the idea of violence as a means to wealth creation. Thegovernment-as-solution mentality is the problem.

BULLISH ON AMERICA

For all his investing savvy, Buffett doesn’t understandanything about business cycles. Hence his reported bullishness. He thinks thatif Obama continues doubling the national debt every couple of years, theupcoming depression could be halted.

Forget that he’s banking on (pun intended) an easy-moneypolicy to keep his banks afloat. Or that his partly-owned ratings agencies werea part of the problem. Or that he’s got enough tools to make money even indepressions. It’s simply moronic to expect the US’ ‘empire of debt’ tocontinue.

FINAL WORDS

Buffett’s cronyism has been explored elsewhere, and so Ileave it to you to do a Google search [new tab] on the matter.

What concerns me most is that he wins over people withhis outright bad economics, in the name of love for one’s fellow man, or worseyet, love for government.

But just like government, Buffett, nice old ‘Up’ manhimself and all, is part of the problem, a regular ‘one-percenter’ if ever therewas one. His recent appearance on SLIME™ Magazine, as Doug Casey calls it, isan affirmation of this.

SOPA SHOWS THAT ‘INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY’ IS TOTALITARIAN NONSENSE

2012-01-19T16:32:00.001+08:00

And she’s on a SOFA too! No SOPAn intended!

What’s wrong with the concept of ‘intellectual property’?

It assumes that my ownership of things ― whether these beservers, hard drives, disks, blank paper, chemicals, etc. ― is secondary to thedictates of non-owners, i.e. copyright, patent and trademark ‘owners’ (thebetter word is ‘cronies’; who precisely are lobbying for SOPA’s and PIPA’spassage?). As if there’s any conflict in the free use of my physical propertyand that of others.

Either ideas could be used freely, or not at all. One’s ‘Eureka’moment as to the truth of this comes either later, or never. But to paraphrasethe naïve IP advocate Ayn Rand, one could not avoid the consequences of notknowing any better ― in this case about the nature of IP.

One ultimately chooses between either a state-controlleddistribution of resources, or a system that regards the right to actual property ― whether one’s body ormaterial things ― as paramount.

CENSORED

2012-01-18T21:48:00.001+08:00

CENSORED

CENSORED

NOYNOY! ACCUSES SELF, CORONA OF BRIBING ‘NOT READY’ PROSECUTION

2012-01-17T19:13:00.000+08:00

Photo from inquirer.net

PASAY, Philippines ― President Noynoy! Aquino has accused himself of bribery,in explaining how his prosecution team could have bungled up the impeachment caseagainst Chief Justice Renato Corona.

“It’s so obvious. No prosecutors can fuck up that bad unintentionally.This had to be organized from on high, the presidency in fact. I am 100%positive that I accepted a bribe from Corona, who is getting off scot-free as aresult,” said the popular president, who has led the executive’s ‘war’ againstthe head of the judiciary.

Prosecutors from the House of Representatives failed [new tab] to present any evidence that Corona had betrayed the ‘public trust’ by voting infavor of former president Gloria Arroyo in several Supreme Court cases. In spiteof the one-month Christmas break, all the prosecutors can say on day 2 of theimpeachment trial at the Senate was that they were “not ready.”

Aquino ridiculed the excuses made by the prosecution. “Reliablesources tell me that I had instructed them [prosecution] to play dumb. Eitherthat or they really are morons,” he said.

“Adjourned! Yes, maaabot ko pa yung Daldalita!”

Although he was implicating himself, and although this isjust the latest of many accusations made, Aquino seems keen on pursuingthis bribery angle if only to save face, saying this “strengthened” hisanti-corruption crusade against Arroyo. “He is really sparing no expense whenit comes to bribing his way to acquittal,” Aquino said of Corona.

In keeping with his disregard of the 1987 Constitution,he was also considering having Arroyo shot in her Veterans Memorial MedicalCenter room.

“If you were to ask anyone at random if they would liketo kill Gloria for all her crimes, they’d say Yes. And so we’re really justfollowing the will of the people. Mere technicalities restricting the executive’sactions must give way to democracy,” he said.

NOBEL WINNER WANNA-BE JEFFREY SACHS ATTACKS LIBERTARIANISM, RON PAUL

2012-01-17T14:18:00.000+08:00

Because they’re NOT part of the status quo/problem,

of course.

Jeffrey Sachs, famous columnist and academic, and teacher of Bono (Whoa Bono! he must be good then!), trains his guns on the libertarian movement and its top representative Ron Paul. He portrays libertarianism as an ‘extreme’ ideology, attractive to impressionable youngsters due to its Braveheart-like invocations of “Freeeeeedooooommmm!”

I quote Sachs:

Libertarians hold that individual liberty should never be sacrificed in the pursuit of other values or causes. Compassion, justice, civic responsibility, honesty, decency, humility, respect, and even survival of the poor, weak, and vulnerable -- all are to take a back seat.

Notice the faulty logic here.

If one denies government’s role in fostering ‘humane’ values, Sachs claims, this means that one rejects these values altogether, in the name of liberty. What complete nonsense.

GIVE ME LIBERTY, OR GIVE ME MORALS?!

Moral values never take a backseat to liberty, just because liberty is advocated. The difference really is whether one sees through the illusion that other values apart from liberty are to be derived from mechanisms that precisely go against such values. Given that the government requires violence and coercion to function, how can we expect compassion et al. to come from government?

Because all libertarians have are rabid cries

for freedom; not scientific at all!

WHO’S BEING ‘IDEOLOGICAL’?

Sachs tries to belittle the “single-mindedness” of libertarians. But how is the belief in government-as-solution any less ‘single-minded’ than the single-mindedness being charged to libertarians?

And what, just because government comes in, in the name of the people, things like greed, discrimination, intolerance, etc. will disappear from society? Now who’s being “single-minded”?

Government does not stop ‘bad’ values present in society; these are merely redirected, even universalized, in ways that would be deemed undesirable, if only the consequences are determined beforehand, e.g.:

Central bank-induced crises (‘greed’);
Overcrowding of prisons disproportionately filled with minorities (‘drug abuse’);
Bigpharma cronies feeding off universal health care (‘lack of compassion’);
Higher prices/lower output due to outsourcing limitations (‘cold-bloodedness’ of employers);
Etc.

FINAL WORDS

People like Sachs misrepresent the free market in documentaries like ‘Commanding heights,’ by claiming that they are for the free market. And those who actually understand free markets like Ron Paul are labeled as ‘extreme.’

In fact, the relative rarity of ‘extreme’ libertarianism goes hand in hand with the very common economic destruction that we see today and will continue to see.

***

On the video below: Because compassion means having to derive it from government.

ON DOWNLOADING THE WHOLE INTERNET, AND STATE INTERVENTION (CENTRAL PLANNING)

2012-01-13T19:02:00.000+08:00

Oo, nakiuso na rin ako (a week late, that is).
Parties. More fun in the Philippines!

One of the dreams in my household is to one day downloadthe entire internet. Yes, to download every single page and file contained inthe entire internet. How awesome would that be!

Now you might think, that’s insane. For a number of obviousreasons:

1. File space. How could the entire internet fit in onecomputer? According to a Wisegeek article [opensin new tab], there are 5 million terabytes online. Could this fit in yourhard drive?

2. Downloading time would be too slow. Even a speed of120 gigs per second would be rendered impotent due to the numerous sites todownload.

3. The content of the internet is ever-changing. Even if it were possible to contain suchmagnitude in one computer, it would be rendered obsolete the further time goesby. What’s more, files keep getting bigger.

IS IT POSSIBLE AFTER ALL?

So it remains a pipe dream, you might think. But then,there is one thing that continues to inspire me: socialism, that is, any nonmarketor state intervention in the allocation of scarce resources.

Socialism or central planning assumes that:

1. The preferences and know-how of billions (or even justthousands maybe, in local governments) can be taken into account and acted uponby a handful of elected officials.

2. The feedback mechanism by which governments acquire orapply knowledge would not have an opportunity cost as compared to the voluntary pricing mechanism.

3. The state can keep up with ever-changing preferencesand know-how of individuals.

CONCLUSION

We can see how belief in state intervention is quitesimilar to my hope for downloading the whole internet. And as long as socialistsare still around, I won’t lose faith in my dream either.

GROSS HAPPINESS INDEX FOR FILIPINOS ―SOME SUGGESTIONS

2012-01-11T15:05:00.001+08:00

In our time of need, we beseech you!

I found this gem from Senator Loren Legarda, who headsthe economic affairs committee.

She wants the government to draft guidelines for measuring‘gross happiness’ as a more reliable indicator of economic conditions in thePhilippines. She says that stuff like GDP are inadequate in that they do notfactor in the effects of industry on the environment and stuff. Other countries arealready using alternative indicators.

I do agree with her (what?!) that GDP and other typicaleconomic stats are poor indicators of economic well-being. So I thought I’dchip in and provide the NEDA, NSCB, etc. with a couple of ideas on how they canmeasure ‘gross happiness’:

More smiles, more

award winners like this one,

and our economy will blast

through the roof!

1. SMILE SURVEY

Economists should conduct surveys as tohow many times the typical ‘man on the street’ smiles. Say, 20 smiles a daymight indicate ‘very happy’ and thus prosperity, while 0 smiles will indicate arecession.

2. JOHN LLOYD/BEA FACTOR

It has been proven that eachtime a new John Lloyd/Bea movie comes to theaters, overall happiness rises. Soeconomists should take note of how recent their last film is. The further awayin time, the less happy (alas, their last film together, ‘Miss you like crazy,’was last shown in cinemas March 2010). But then, if these movies are shown onCinemaOne or PBO, happy points should be added.

[January 13, 2012 update: My First Romance was shown yesterday afternoon on CinemaOne, to the delight of thousands of yayas nationwide. Hurrah, GHI!]

3. AGGREGATE AWARDS WON BY FILIPINOS

This is a powerfulindicator. When Efren Peñaflorida won that CNN award, and more recently whenthe Indonesia-based-pero-Pinay-na-rin Robin Lim won the same, ‘Filipino pride’was stoked anew. So the NSCB should definitely count the number ofinternational awards won by Filipinos in a given month, even if the voters are dominantlyFilipinos who have nothing better to do at work than Facebook and vote online.Such solidarity represents happiness as well.

And whenever the NSCB needs some number-fudging, theycan include local awards FAMAS and MMFF as well!

4. RACIAL SLURS IN INTERNATIONAL MEDIA
This is considered a negative factor, in that whenever Teri Hatcher or Claire Danes or somebody makes any comment even slightly offensive to Filipinos, everyone becomes angry, and therefore not happy. So the number of racial jokes or comments made by foreigners, heck, even lingual comments by Filipinos like James Soriano, should be counted.

I suddenly got a mental block and that’s all I can comeup with for now. I hope this will someway help Senator Legarda’s earnestproposal to measure happiness.

THE PHILIPPINES IS MORE FUN, AND OTHER LIES

2012-01-08T20:17:00.000+08:00

Is “It’s more fun in the Philippines” really worth over a billion pesos a year?!

At my house, we finally cut our subscription to the goddamn Inquirer, and it’s spared me some IQ points. However, it also makes me less responsive to current events, because I also don’t bother going to the news websites (kasi nga nakakabobo ang balita).

But the “It’s more fun in the Philippines” discussions have been rather inescapable. From what I read on Facebook, it’s a matter of, “Is it a good slogan for Philippine tourism or not?”

I’ve seen no one even bother to ask, “Do we really need a Tourism department to market tourist attractions?” Or “Did we really have to wait for a new slogan at all?”

OPPORTUNITY COST OF CENTRAL PLANNING

But even if we do agree that it’s a nice-sounding slogan, and even if it boosts tourist visits, there’s something we are neglecting.

The Tourism department required money expropriated from citizens, money which would have otherwise been used for other satisfactions, such as medicine, food or additional savings.

Is it sane to think that this system of expropriate-then-spend makes for a net gain as compared to the could-have-been of actual consumer wants?

THE ‘WHAT IF’ OF LESS GOVERNMENT MEDDLING

In the 2012 national budget, the Tourism department receives P1.63 billion [opens in another tab]. This is a little short of 1% of the entire General Appropriations Act, and P200 million more than last year.

Perhaps it would have been better to let taxpayers keep these insane amounts of money. I for one think that Philippine resorts would have been better off not paying whatever taxes they have to pay, and using such funds for promotion as they see fit instead.

And if resorts see it in their best interest to go with a general nationwide theme, e.g. they use a slogan such as

“Inflation is going to bite your ass. Come to the Philippines for third-world prices”

it’s because the feedback system of the market would confirm that it’s an effective one.

SLOGANS WILL ONLY GET YOU SO FAR

But as with any product, you have to back it up with actual quality. There are some world-class destinations, I’m sure, but some aspects of the Philippine experience, e.g. airports and traffic, would nonetheless be a buzzkill to those eager to see what the ‘fun’ is all about.

And this is where we realize that the truly best way to draw in investments from abroad ― and tourism is about revenue generation after all ― is to remove existent barriers. All else is superficial.

It’s really quite simple: Abolish or drastically cut the numerous laws on taxation and regulation, remove all hindrances to movement and speech, and privatize all land. This will make foreigners go, “Wow, Philippines! We can do anything we want! Looks like fun!”

To get an idea of how tourism could flourish without a Tourism department, see my brief discussion in my book here [opens in another tab].

Colorful Rag Makes Everything Better.

Generated by the Advertising Slogan Generator. Make one for yourself!

‘BOURNE LEGACY’ TO BE SHOT IN STREETS OF MANILA ― GET THE FUCK OUT!

2012-01-05T16:16:00.000+08:00

I hope you’ve already applied to become one of the 1,000 extras needed [link opens in new tab] for the next ‘Bourne’ movie ‘Legacy,’ which will be partly shotin Manila, so we’re told.

I can’t help wonder though. Who’s going to weigh between theconsequences of:

1. The inconvenience brought about by additional trafficon alternative routes; and

2. The ‘prestige’ of having Manila used to portray third-worldurban life?

The councilors? The MMDA? The mayor? On what basis willthey make their judgment? Could their decisions manifest in any manner asidefrom considering what keeps them in power?

ELECTORAL SYSTEM A ZERO-SUM (+1/-1) GAME

The voting system necessarily makes for a win-lose situation,that is, the victorious mayor and his allies/direct beneficiaries win, andeveryone else loses.

There is a world of difference between ‘public office,’and the market, in that the latter requires consent for transactions to takeplace. On the other hand, defying the powers-that-be will get you arrested.

VAGUENESS OF BOUNDARIES IN ‘COMMUNAL PROPERTY’

It is no wonder that where accountability and propertyclaims are vague, such as with roads, service is found wanting.

We can only guess whether the decision to use Manila’sstreets is a ‘good’ decision, because the mechanism by which utility isdetermined ― private property ― does not exist.

THE SUCCESS OF COMMUNAL PROPERTY ELSEWHERE

Some are quick to point out that there are instanceswhere people get by quite alright even though, say, a lake is owned by a community.I can imagine someone saying, “So you see, public property can exist for thebenefit of all!”

But such happy instances do not deal with ‘public property.’ The very term is an oxymoron. Whatmakes property property is that it is accorded to specific individuals to do withas they please.

It is very possible for a community to take care of awaterform, sustaining it as necessary, even while keeping the rules on its userather vague. If the people decide to keep things loose, with just a generalrule of ‘be considerate,’ this is still the decision of private owners, who are still exercising their control individually― even as the risk of conflict increases the more owners there are.

TOASTERS ARE A PROOF OF COMMUNISM

A reduced example I sometimes give is the toaster (wowsosyal!). I don’t even remember where the present toaster in my house camefrom, or who bought it. Yet my family gets by alright.

We don’t have to show a title or certificate of ownershipeach time we need to toast something. We don’t have to assign a maximum time ofuse for each household member. If someone gets to it first, the next personwaits, and it’s simple as that. Sometimes, we would ask to add to the presentbatch of stuff being toasted, so as to save time and energy. Sometimes, we don’task at all. No complaints!

If communism (in the more literal sense of the word) isever to work, the state will have nothing to do with it. Private property wouldstill be the guiding force for social order.

***

Additional link: Solving traffic, where I explain in dialogue form the feasibility of privatization of roads.

DIOKNO URGES MORE SPENDING THIS 2012 ― THE MAGIC OF GOVERNMENT BUDGETING

2012-01-03T07:59:00.002+08:00

The less you have, the more you have. And war is peace.

Like many families, mine started 2012 by accounting for last year’s expenditures. We are looking for where cuts could be made, for one thing.

What a disconnect from the economic ‘expertise’ being brandished by former budget secretary Ben Diokno, in this ABS-CBN interview [opens in another tab]. Even as Noynoy! Aquino has enacted a record-high P1.8-trillion budget for 2012, Diokno is urging more spending, for infrastructure and whatnot.

PROSPERITY OUT OF THIN AIR

Is there any fundamental difference between household spending, and that on a national scale? For Diokno and others like him, the impracticality of spending-as-stimulus in a family setting becomes a cure when governments do the spending.

This is all really quite irresponsible nonsense, but such nonsense is precisely what is being encouraged in universities here and abroad. Is it any wonder that the Philippines, and the world in general, is experiencing such economic turbulence as today?

FINAL REMARK

It’s common sense for us to save, in order to spend later. But if you’re looking for a slightly more detailed refutation of the talking points of these Keynesian spendthrifts, you can check out this section of my book.

2012 PHILIPPINE BUDGET ON TIME AGAIN ― ANG GALING NAMAN NI NOYNOY!!!

2011-12-29T12:38:00.002+08:00

The before-year-end passage of the national budget fornext year is widely considered a good thing showing ‘good governance.’

Look atMr. Daang Matuwid himself, Noynoy! Aquino, being able to enact the 2011 and 2012General Appropriations Acts by the Decembers of the preceding years.

EVERYBODY HAPPY!

I have a different take on it. Noynoy! is settingrecord-high budgets ― even accounting for inflation ― two years in a row now.This latest budget for 2012 amounts to P1.816 trillion, or over $40 billion.

Why would the House and Senate prolong proceedings with governmentagencies? Who’s going to complain? The national government is being handed alarger slice of the pie of total national output! What more could they ask?

And we’re not even considering the Priority DevelopmentAssistance Fund, which is what really matters to Congress.

So you can take this ‘solidarity’ of Congress, which is accordingitself to the expensive will of the president, as a good thing (Hwaw! Howefficient!) ― or as a sign that government is becoming bigger, more controllingof our lives.

To me, it is becoming more obvious that the sustenance of government is government’s raison d’être.

MY ECONOMIC WRITINGS FROM COLLEGE, a.k.a. I WAS A STUPID SOCIALIST TOO

2011-12-27T22:56:00.001+08:00

If you’ve been reading this blog for a while now, you’verealized that it’s authored by a complete idiot. But would you believe, I waseven stupider back in college? I thought of posting some choice passages froman ECON101 written project I submitted back in the third quarter of 2000.

FORGIVABLE ERRORS

There are two types of errors I am sharing here. Thefirst involves mis-learning the stuff I was taught, such as defining budgetdeficits as having “less expenditures than revenue,” which is actually a decentdefinition of profit.

I also claimed that increased US dollarreserves made for a weaker Philippine currency. Actually, peso depreciation is caused by an increased demand for dollars, which reduces BSP dollar reserves.

ERRORS THAT PROFESSORS TEACH THEMSELVES

But even more grave, in my mind, are those errors thatare propounded by economics professors themselves, and encouraged by them.

Read my simple-minded denunciation of profit, and you might detect a little bit of yourself as well:

The members of OPEC are really out there for the money,and if they can get away with cutting corners in their deals they’d be game forit...

... The less supply of oil there is, the higherthe prices will be, and of course the money gained from this will go to thosewonderful wonderful leaders of those great nations that are part of OPEC. Theycan’t lose! Sure people will hate them, but what’s a few cuss words thrown atyou to a few more thousand bucks? Despite the lack of effort of OPEC ministersto meet their quota, there has to be some way to get these people to actuallyproduce what they’re supposed to. Maybea few more privileges in their own government positions, as long as it doesn’ttrample other people’s rights. But thinking about it, it’s pathetic to bribeofficials in order for them to do their work right. I believe then that acountry’s citizens just have to be able to pick people who they know are intheir positions in order to serve thepeople...

I know better now, that it isn’t the money objectivethat is the problem, but the means by which such is attained:intergovernmental cartel. And I actually wanted to increase privileges of these guys! It’s such muddled thinking thatmakes people associate public service with government work. So it really doesn’tsurprise me to see such twisted thinking in the news today.

Plus, I ignored that even OPEC couldn’t raise priceslimitlessly, since if people couldn’t afford oil, it simply won’t be bought,and alternatives will be sought, as damaging as this may be ― if the OPECofficials aren’t overthrown in a violent uprising that is.

RICH-POORCLASS CONFLICT, AN EXCUSE FOR THE STATE TO EXIST

Here’sanother classic:

Thericher are able to gain more money because it is them [sic] who do business withinternational companies. The poorer people though would depend on the supply ofmoney of their employers, and they wouldn’t be given raises.

Aside from the mistaken use of the term ‘supply of money,’I am supposing that salaries are determined by compassion of employers. Infact, wage rates come from demand among firms who bid/compete for manpower. Iresorted to simplistic explanations, due to my then-inability to consider otherfactors that are in fact more far-reaching ― central banking, to name one.

BAD ‘EMPIRICAL’ METHODOLOGY

I also agreed with a FinancialTimes article by Andrew Oswald that saw a direct relationship between oilprices and the unemployment rate. This is a very typical methodological error,of linking two figures as it suits a certain purpose, rather than analyzing a priori.

I said:

... when oil prices go up or down, we areaffected much in the same way since the same amounts are used up in ourincomes. Since everybody spends on oil, plenty of what happens in life isaffected by it, especially jobs. When oil prices are down, more people canafford oil, so employers are better able to afford more employees. When oilprices go up, it’s hard times for everybody and so more people lose their jobs.

The real question is: what is causing these price distortionsthat make employing more people, and pricing products beyond costs,unprofitable?

Costs do not determine value; they are derived from theperceived value of end-products. For crude prices to go up when the finalproduct is sellable only at a lower price, is partly a central bank-induced miscalculationexplained by the Austrian theory of the business cycle. This same theory, amonetary one, also explains unemployment in terms of being a miscalculation.Because certain projects turn out to be not as profitable as earlier assumed,unemployment eventually rises.

But apart from monetary considerations, the cost-theoryof Oswald and my decade-ago self is still wrong. When demand for crude increasesin relation to its supply, this is indicative of less products that are perceivedto be demanded. And this drop in consumptiondoes not make for future investment/employment, because there is also no additional capitaldiverted to such a purpose.

ECONOMIC GROWTH IS NOT SECTOR-SPECIFIC

I also thought that an increase in computer chip exportswould make for a bigger economy. But output growth is not about any specificsectors’ expansion. Rather, investment makes for more domestic, or foreign, business; it really doesn’t matter where it happens.

Now if we’re talking about foreigners patronizing moredomestic products, then capital increases locally; but this isn’t what makesfor any growth in world GDP ― it is always capital accumulation that makes forfuture growth.

FINAL REMARK

If you are wanna-be do-gooder immersed in the propagandaof mainstream economics, know that you are not alone: there are millions ofmorons like you. Thankfully, with time, and with a willingness to go beyond thetraditional sources of education, you can know enough to realize what an idiot youwere back when you were a moron.

THE PHILIPPINES: RHETORIC AND REALITY

2011-12-25T18:14:00.000+08:00

Noynoy sucks. Two thumbs down. Nothing personal.

It’s been a year and a half since the election of Benigno “Noynoy” C. Aquino III as president of the Philippines, and Filipinos in general seem quite satisfied with the choice many of them had made. Even with the election honeymoon over, Aquino enjoys a net satisfaction rating of 56%, according to the September 2011 survey [opens in new tab] by Social Weather Stations, one of the country’s most prominent polling firms.

A large part of such a high approval rating comes from the perceived ‘cleanliness’ of the present administration, especially relative to his predecessor, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, who had been subject to failed impeachment cases every year for the last five years of her nine-year stint as chief executive.

Sure enough, Aquino’s exposés of government corruption and wastefulness during the Arroyo administration affirm, at least in the minds of many Filipinos, the incumbent president’s commitment to rid the Philippine government institutions of corruption. Aquino’s most famous campaign slogan was “Kung walang corrupt, walang mahirap [Literally: “If there are none corrupt, there will be none poor”]. When evaluating Aquino’s success, two questions come to mind: Is the administration defeating corruption, as it claims? And are we to see a reduction in poverty?

The following article fixes a very critical eye on Aquino; he fails on both counts. Surely not pleasant to hear, but in the long run, tough love and not complacent cheerleading makes the difference between progress and failure.

A DEMOCRATIC LEGACY

Dong Puno, national hero

In 1986, Aquino’s mother Corazon C. Aquino assumed the presidency, with strongman Ferdinand Marcos fleeing to Hawaii after being forsaken by his military chief of staff Fidel V. Ramos (himself becoming president in 1992). International opinion had also shifted in support of what was soon to be branded as “People Power,” of millions marching into the streets calling for the downfall of the dictator.

President “Cory,” whose husband Benigno “Ninoy” S. Aquino, Jr. had been gunned down three years earlier, has since been known as an icon of democracy. It was her death on August 1, 2009 that gave her son Noynoy the impetus to run for president the following year. It is quite understandable why the incumbent president’s rise to power has a ring of destiny to it. The challenge, however, is in translating such high-minded ideals into economic gains for the people who are supposedly represented by such a democratic rule.

MODERN DEMOCRACY AND THE RULE OF LAW

Salma, granddaughter of economist Friedrich A. von Hayek

In ‘Law, legislation and liberty,’ Friedrich Hayek notes the relatively recent transformation of the concept of democracy, from one of equal application of the law by which civilization has come about, into a pretext for government interference in the accomplishment of particular goals. These particular goals have their adverse, long-term consequences, as they go against an efficient social arrangement preconceived by no single entity.

Modern democracy supposes that a law is just, not by virtue of some universal standard, but by having been legislated by elected representatives of the people. Hayek, however, points out that this is a recipe for social disorder because the ‘laws’ thus created would require coercion to implement, contrary to the freedom necessary for market transactions, the choices of which tend to make for an efficient use of scarce resources.

Today, the right to property, previously recognized as essential to just society, is quite ironically attacked in the name of “social justice.” With modern notions of democracy in hand, a government can go about crafting its policies as it sees fit, in the belief that these are good ones effected by “the people.” Government policy, in effect, becomes a hodge-podge of concessions to politically privileged sectors, without regard for and contrary to general rules of conduct that otherwise make for voluntary and mutually beneficial social interactions.

It is perhaps the “impersonal” appearance of Hayek’s ‘rule of law’ that makes it less appealing than the grand designs cooked up by politicians and supported by their constituents. The current Philippine situation is just as good an example as any of such demagoguery.

NARROW CONCEPT OF CORRUPTION

Merry Christmas everybody!

By confining the concept of “corruption” to secretive deals, much of government policy becomes acceptable, as socially detrimental as these may actually be. Moreover, this limited view of corruption does not impede the growth of government, the enlarging of which results precisely in the corruption scandals that make it to the headlines.

To lament the misuse of taxpayers’ money while merely calling for ‘government reform’ or ‘greater government oversight’ is the equivalent of keeping the cookie jar in the lower shelf and getting upset when your six-year-old finishes all the cookies. By merely looking for scams to squeal about to the public, and not advocating a radical rationalization or reduction in government offices, Aquino and his Cabinet are keeping the figurative cookie jar within reach of nasty elements.

Much of government action is an exercise in irony. The scandals that plagued the Arroyo administration, and those before and since, are typically one-shot redistributive programs that had promised to aid a certain marginalized sector. As bad as these may be, it is not sufficient for Aquino to focus his energies on unearthing such anomalies. More relevant and pressing are the long-standing programs whose corruption is indistinguishable from the offices themselves, e.g. Bureau of Customs, Department of Education, etc.

Both Ninoy Aquino and Ferdinand Marcos were

fascist-communist-socialists, and loved cronies

disguised as the market. Alas, as with all politics,

there was only room for one gang leader in town.

QUOTE PRO-BUSINESS UNQUOTE

Like his predecessor, Aquino seems more intent on maintaining the unfriendly business environment via high Customs charges and numerous regulations, all the while reciting “pro-business” rhetoric. Instead of reducing the bureaucratic red tape that makes the purchase of equipment and goods problematic for small businesses, focus is placed on “running after tax evaders” or strengthening “anti-smuggling” efforts, in the belief that the collected revenue would be put to better use than the foregone earnings and employment of private entities. Also, the rampant bribery that occurs is not seen as a sign of excessive duties, or as firms’ adaptation to oppressive conditions, but just another hole to plug.

Companies continue to have a difficult time even starting due to the trouble of registering at the Securities and Exchange Commission and Department of Trade and Industry. Although Aquino had promised in his State of the Nation Address in July 2010 to facilitate the ease of starting a business, there is little to show for his words.

CRONIES DISGUISED AS THE ‘PRIVATE SECTOR’

Much has been made of the administration’s supposed “cooperation” with the “private sector,” when in fact, the Philippines’ “Public Private Partnership Center” breeds cronyism, which is harmful to the smaller players.

It is a common mistake in news media to refer to ‘privatization’ and the like when in fact government franchises or monopolies are meant. Instead of getting rid of these state-sanctioned monopolies and allowing smaller businesses a chance to provide many of these services, the Aquino administration only looks to private ‘monopolies,’ or those companies with a large market share in a certain sector, as targets of proposed antitrust measures.

If this keeps up, it is doubtful that the Philippines is going to improve its low competitiveness ranking [opens in new tab] in 2011, of 75 ― out of 142 countries ― as determined by the World Economic Forum.

EDUCATION REFORM

Education typically gets the largest share of the national budget each year, but such an allocation is not evident in the results. Rather than easing out the government’s role in coming up with curricula so as to make for a more competitive and diverse sector, the Aquino administration is calling for an increase in the number of years of basic education, from 10 to 12, in line with international standards.

It is unlikely that an already bureaucratically encumbered sector is going to produce ‘smarter’ students simply by lengthening the period of basic education, especially if control of resources on education is retained by the state. It is, on the other hand, quite possible that, with an additional two years before students start working, the number of employees nationwide will drop, and with this, overall output. And in crafting plans for 12-year basic education, the issue of funding is given only secondary significance. Ultimately, it is the quality of education, and not quantity of years, that ought to be given consideration.

SPIN

Don’t believe it. No one smiles for working like that.

Many cite the rising Philippine stock market as a sign of the economy taking off. Indeed, the Philippine Stock Exchange index is now beyond 4,000, much higher than the 1,800-level experienced in late 2008-early 2009 as a result of the global financial debacle perpetrated by the US Federal Reserve. The political opposition would be quick to point out that a high index level does not result in lesser hungry mouths to feed, and they would be right in a sense, not simply because such bullishness is the result of ‘hot money’ inflows that are quick to disappear in profit taking, but also due to the loss in purchasing power of fiat currencies worldwide. This central bank-induced inflation that provides easy credit to small and big business alike does not create wealth; the misallocation of resources in such an environment inevitably results in depressions, the latest of which is only a matter of time now. But that’s another story.

Other vaunted sources of economic growth are business process outsourcing (BPO), and overseas workers, the latter’s remittances totaling about $18 billion annually. It is conveniently ignored that so many Filipinos go abroad or work for foreign companies precisely because of the country’s low income per capita, among other factors, for which foreign employers are quick to take advantage. It is by this process of foreign employment and investments that incomes tend to equilibrate among geographies, and we are only at the beginning of such a process of equilibration.

Foreign employment should be recognized as the market reaction to a lousy economy that it is, and not some point of pride. It would be folly to heed calls to add incentives for BPO firms or subsidies for overseas workers, as these would further impoverish local sectors and keep the prospect of foreign employment appealing, preventing other sectors from becoming competitive and thus making for a vicious cycle.

CONCLUSION ― REAL REFORM NOT IN SIGHT

Alas, the very thing holding back our progress,

the Constitution, is also the only thing

keeping these bastards (opens in a new tab)

from extinguishing our rights altogether.

Much has not been covered in this short article, such as the administration’s advocacy of population control (euphemistically referred to as “responsible parenthood” or “reproductive health”), health care (where US-like universal coverage is being pushed, at the expense of private choice and voluntary charity) and the perpetual deficit spending by the national government (more taxes, more devaluation), but as it is, the administration’s attitude to the fundamental concepts of freedom and democracy can readily be seen.

The Philippine government continues to operate based on an ultimately injurious concept of democracy, that is, rule on public say-so as determined by politicians. Instead of focusing on market reforms, the Aquino administration seems content in perpetuating the statist conditions that make for economic staleness, even as Aquino had campaigned for a ‘cleansing’ of political institutions. If things stay this way, we could not expect any improvements whether in getting rid of government corruption or in improving the poverty situation ― which does not mean that Aquino will not be able to maintain a high approval rating.

Much of the necessary changes would involve an overhaul of the economic provisions of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, with its foreign ownership restrictions and its state-interventionist framework, as well as a prioritizing by Aquino of reducing bureaucratic procedures that businesses, small and large alike, are made to undergo. Sadly, there is virtually nothing to indicate that Aquino is headed in the direction of liberty.

Explanatory note: I originally wrote this article in February of this year, expecting it to be published for an international audience sometime mid-year, but this did not happen. I would not want it to go to waste, so voila. I updated the stats and some phrasings but for the most part, the article is the same as 10 months ago.

THE GIFTS OF BEING LIBERTARIAN (CHRISTMAS 2011, PHILIPPINES)

2011-12-21T22:05:00.000+08:00

‘Tis the season of gifts. I’m talking about Christmas of course. I thought for this 2011 season to discuss the blessings of my being a libertarian.

But first, let me give credit for this article idea, to Harry Santos of HarryLeaks.blogspot.com. I just hope this doesn’t overshadow his article when he comes around to publishing it!

PRE-RAMBLE

I’m really just a boy from the Philippines who has been awakened to the true nature of government. Perhaps my being libertarian doesn’t make me any happier than others, nor does it make me ‘better’ than others ― although I argue below that some aspects of my character are improved thanks to it. But this newfound awareness is more than just about feeling happy or vain.

Dane Søren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) differentiated Judaism from Christianity, by pointing out how the former had to do with worldly happiness (bountiful harvests, plenty of sons and daughters, etc.), and the latter was precisely about carrying one’s cross without hope for better days on earth.

Now I think Kierkegaard was a really depressed dude, and I’m all for material prosperity and good social relations, but he makes a good point that his beliefs were to be believed not for any apparent gain but simply because they were right and true, which is how I feel about libertarianism. I could not do otherwise.

GIFT 1: A HUNGRY KID IN AFRICA? NOT MY FAULT

As kids, we were told to finish our meals, because many people in the world are starving.

Read this (opens in new tab)

for a hilarious The Onion article on hunger!

We tend to think that the enjoyment of whatever wealth we have is subtracted from other people’s joy. The fact, however, is that poverty in one place is not the effect of prosperity elsewhere; rather, the conditions for prosperity existing elsewhere are not yet established.

The ‘trickle-down effect’ is ridiculed by those who’d like to see government redistribution instead. However, ‘trickle-down’ is a misnomer, implying that, yeah, let’s let the rich folks accumulate more money for themselves, some of it will eventually get to the poor.

Actually, when an entrepreneur or investor gets to keep more of their capital, this makes for jobs and incomes now even though profit for these ‘capitalist pigs’ comes later, if at all. Furthermore, products come into the market, as affordable to the consumer as the production process allows (the more previous savings, the more efficient).

More jobs, more wages, more consumption. Can we really call this system ‘trickle-down’?

GIFT 2: WOW! CAPITALISM

Reese’s Pieces come from these? Fuck yeah!

The last few weeks, I caught the History Channel’s ‘Modern Marvels’ twice. Man, I love that show! Seeing how cola and chocolate come from obscure fruits, and are transformed into their familiar version by a very meticulous and capital-intensive process, and how consumers have an endless variety of products from which to choose, I couldn’t help but raise my fist up high in saluting freedom!

I wouldn’t have as beautiful an appreciation were it not for the time I’ve devoted into studying the ‘boring’ field of economics, free-market economics that is.

GIFT 3: MY EYES HAVE OPENED

In ‘JFK’ (1991), D.A. Jim Garrison’s wife complains that in pursuing the Kennedy murder trial, he has changed. To which Garrison responds:

Of course I’ve changed. My eyes have opened... I had a life too, you know! You can't bury your head in the sand like an ostrich, Liz! It's not about our well-being, our two cars, our TVs and your kitchen! It's about our kids growing up in a shithole of lies. I'm angry! My life is fucked because of it. If you could see it that way, you'd see your life is fucked too.

I’m not quite as deep in shit as Garrison was, but what has happened to me is that I’ve been freed of so much, truly so much, bullshit. Even when facts are accurate, the interpretation of such is likely wrong.

Becoming a libertarian, contradictions cease being contradictions. How is it that being held up by a petty thief is wrong, but being taxed unwillingly by a government, every fucking day, is accepted? But the two instances are both outright theft, I have realized.

All this nonsense dressed up as rhetoric from politicians, who are deluded themselves into believing the stuff that comes out of their mouths. Each time you read from their hack columnists about how climate change caused Typhoon ‘Sendong,’ or how ‘stimulus’ will bring the economy back on track, you’re being fed a lie, or at best, a fallacy.

It’s a liberating feeling, to be among the few who know better, who recognize media for the gag show that it is. This adds to my feeling of being elite, sure, yet please indulge me this, for all the opposition and misunderstanding I encounter.

GIFT 4: APPRECIATING MARKET POPULARITY

I’ve always been a snob when it comes to the arts, specifically music. And because of this elitism, I could very well have become a fascist, thinking that, because the lowest common denominator is crude and shallow, there is a need for Plato’s ‘philosopher-king’ to be in charge, to make the right decisions and thus uplift society.

Top-down approaches to social change never work, I know this now. What’s more, the philosopher-king-dictator is in a quandary as to how to make decisions that are ‘better’ than what the masses would make otherwise.

As Ludwig von Mises said:

The entrepreneur’s [or consumer’s] commercial attitude and activity arises from his position in the economic process and is lost with its disappearance.

To be a genuine music snob, you have to know

counterpoint. Listen to one of the greatest

examples of it here (opens in new tab).

No matter how abhorrent commercial trends may be, in music, fashion, food or whatever, this could not be turned around by inflicting coercion on those who don’t know better. A national leader may be of the opinion that the music of J.S. Bach is the supreme intellectual achievement, but does this mean that imposing his preferences by the threat of a gun will bring ‘enlightenment’ to the masses?

If there is a ‘need’ to educate and refine the populace, it does not follow that government is the institution to do it. In fact, people should be educated precisely about the dangers of government.

GIFT 5: NOT BEING AS MUCH OF A JERK

I am ashamed to admit that I tend to talk down to people of lower incomes who are not in a position to retaliate, such as guards, sales clerks and customer service representatives. Much more so before than now. At present, I like talking to ‘those peasants,’ hanging out in kantos, and trying to relate to them as though I were a presidential candidate getting campaign pictures taken.

I was yelling at this babe pala!

When someone irritates us (e.g. Mo Twister) or offends us in some way (e.g. bus drivers), we tend to make careless comments about how they are “good for nothing.” But really, how would we know that? The amazing thing about the market is that we don’t know the full extent of each one’s role. We may not realize it, but thousands of people, possibly millions, are responsible for the creation of a bottle of coke, or a pack of M&M’s, or just about anything we take for granted in consuming.

Moreover, I now know that I never have a ‘right’ to a person’s good services, even when I’ve paid money for this. To think so is to look at members of society as slaves, rather than people with whom I freely associate.

If I am unsure about the quality of someone’s work, I patronize them at my risk. If I am unsatisfied with someone’s performance, I am at least in a better position to make a more informed choice later on. Caveat emptor (beware, buyer) has become a dirty phrase, as we have grown accustomed to relying on the FDA, the DTI, the SEC, etc. to ensure ‘consumer protection.’ But monopolies only encourage the existing complacency.

GIFT 6: DISCIPLINE

Buy this book set here

(opens in new tab).

Or just Wiki the topics.

In my studies of the Austrian school of economics, and even the Keynesian nonsense that is known as macroeconomics, I have acquired a discipline to getting things done that I had never had in college or work. It’s an obsession I’ve only known in crafting music, another passion of mine. I’ve killed myself spending thousands and thousands of hours in just a couple years’ time, reading economic and philosophical texts.

Such devotion does not equate to true wisdom, sure. But still, I feel that my selection of economic texts has been rather good, definitely better than the shit that gets one a PhD, by which an ‘expert’ becomes counsel to bureaucrats who apply such ‘know-how’ in destroying economies.

My love for libertarianism has also led me to publish two books in the past two years (two more were written, actually, but remain unpublished). Admittedly, my writings have been a rather shoddy application of what I’ve learned and conceived over the last couple of years. The books more often read like scribbles than threshed-out treatises. In time, however, I hope to be able to articulate my thoughts better.

GIFT 7: I WAS IN THE GOVERNMENT TOO, ONCE

Oh wow. I remember counting down my last

150 days, sometimes more than once a day.
Turned my hair white.

I became a full-bodied libertarian at a time when I was part of the god-awful government. Contrary to what some may think, my aversion to the state is not a result of my actual experiences as a ‘public’ employee ― although what I saw indeed confirmed my then-burgeoning outlook on politics. I soon began feeling guilty for being paid with taxpayers’ money (which is stolen money, essentially).

When I first entered in 2007, I had taken my ‘boss’ to be a pro-market guy, as he was opposed to a price-control measure. For whatever reason, he later changed his mind and his pet bill was enacted with the price-control provision intact.

(Beware of nice, well-meaning guys saying shit that sounds good, that sounds inspiring even, i.e. Ninoy)

Before government, I believed in ‘small government,’ generally free-market but allowing for the state when it came to courts and security. By the time I left two years after, I had learned enough to know that the state was an illegitimate institution through and through. It made my departure from government not just painless, but one of salvation.

GIFT 8: FRIENDS

The past two years, thanks to the networking power of the Web, I have made friends with more than a dozen people who have approximately the same political beliefs as me.

We meet maybe once every two months or so. With no one else am I able to articulate or vent my ideas and frustrations with regards to political economy. I am grateful for this new circle of friends. Thanks for being around guys!

WHAT ABOUT THE DOWNSIDE?

Conan O’Brien, a hilarious and unwitting

pawn of big government.

Apart from the inadvertent ‘persecution’ from hearing stupid anti-market opinions in conversations, there have been otherwise entertaining TV shows that I could no longer watch because they reeked of propaganda. Well, this isn’t really a ‘downside,’ as I’ve been saved from wasting my time watching TV, ‘diba? And there’s ‘Modern marvels’ anyway.

I’ve also become ever-critical of things and people, so as not to give in to full enjoyment or appreciation, when some statism is expressed or implied. For the most part, though, I’ve avoided heated debates. In fact, I would tend to debate free-market folks more, but at least in a rather civilized manner.

CONCLUSION

As you can tell, the spiritual gifts to learning about freedom are numerous. They’ve been priceless to me. I can only think of two other things ― my musical awakening and my family ― that even compare.

Have an unhappy Christmas!

I didn’t mean for this to be so long, and I wasn’t trying to ‘convert’ anyone. As amazing as it is to change another one’s life by setting them on the libertarian path, I no longer try, having realized that one’s unique personal experiences and not my prattling are what make the difference.

I’m just happy to express my thoughts like this. Thanks for reading, and have a Merry Christmas (or as Kierkegaard would admonish, a dreadful one)!

WHY NOYNOY! SHOULDN’T BOTHER WITH ‘SENDONG’

2011-12-20T18:49:00.001+08:00

Can you really blame Noynoy! naman?

Wow our great president Noynoy! Aquino, of noble blood, strength of a bear, courage of a lion, etc. isgetting hell of a lot of flak from people who want to see him in Cagayan De Oroassisting in relief efforts for victims of Typhoon ‘Sendong.’

Basically theidea is that, “You’re supposed to take care of us!”

Ano siya, magulang? People are likening the son of abitch to a dad who isn’t there for his dengue-stricken kid. “Where were youwhen I needed you? Hu-hu-hu!”

Why is he, or anyone for that matter, ever put in theposition of being responsible for an entire country of 100 million people?!

IF YOU HATE HIM SO MUCH, WHY GIVE HIM ALL THIS POWER?

The problem actually is that relief efforts are stuntedto the degree that government has sucked resources out of the economy, in allsorts of ways, for example, a monopoly on weather forecasting, and ‘public’ ownership of denuded forests, the logging of which is now being blamed for theexcessive flooding.

And when things go wrong, as they eventually do withgovernment, it is the top dog, in this case Noynoy!, to whom people look forassistance.

IF GOVERNMENT SUCKS SO MUCH, WHY PREFER IT TO VOLUNTARY MARKETS?

Surely his incompetence in disaster management (hindi man lang nagpa-photo op!), and thegovernment’s overall incompetence, is more indesirable than whatever mistrustpeople have of the ‘free market’?

But people usually never get to weighing these ― the political and the economic ― squarely.

GOVERNMENT AID AS ‘REFUNDS’ OF A SORT

With all the expropriation and prohibitions, the privatesector is drained and to a certain degree needs to be recipient of capitaltaken from them.

But in order for these crises not to happen again to the same extent, theoverall attitude of people has to change from a blind illogical faith inelected gangsters (politicians) to a trust in decentralized processes (markets,i.e. the people themselves).

ECONOMIC CALCULATION AND WHY YOU CAN’T THINK OF WHAT TO GIVE THIS CHRISTMAS (PHILIPPINES 2011)

2011-12-20T17:46:00.000+08:00

Check out this article for some really awful gift ideas!

The past two days saw me wandering around the mall. Istill have yet to buy gifts for two members of my family. Awhile ago, indesperation, my mind turned to the great economist Ludwig von Mises.

In his 1920 essay ‘Economic calculation and the socialist commonwealth,’ Mises forever refuted the possibility of the state everallocating economic resources in any meaningful way, apart from what remains ofmarkets, where individual preferences manifest via prices.

“WHAT WOULD HE/SHEWANT?”

As a child, Ludwig von Mises never got
what he wanted from Santa.

This would one day lead him to his

economic calculation argument

against state control of resources,
i.e. socialism.

I applied this theory to my attempts at shopping: Thereason it’s so difficult to buy gifts that are genuinely appreciated by thebeneficiary (i.e. apart from counting ‘the thought’) is because the gift-giveris pretending to know what another person wants, even though the person whobest knows is the beneficiary themselves!

Sure there are some successes in gift-giving, where youbuy something that the person hadn’t quite come to buy themselves yet. Or youmight have access to the gift that the person doesn’t. Or you might have moremoney. Or something.

But by and large, people have to settle for token gifts,or gifts that could have been better chosen in some way or another. This is whyI am proposing a new system to the whole gift-giving process.

MY PROPOSAL

Instead of giving gifts, it would be better for eachindividual to list down people to whom they would normally give gifts. Let’ssay you’re able to think of 10 people. Next, list down things that YOU wouldlike to receive.

If you buy all these things, in the name of your friendsand family, you’ll be a more satisfied recipient, won’t you? And if everyonedoes this, people would be a happier bunch at Christmas!

“Alright! Just what I wanted!”

WON’T SOMEBODYPLEASE THINK ABOUT THE CHILDREN?

Of course, kids are usually economically deficient, andwould be ‘lugi’ in this new system, unless their parents/guardians tell them:

“Fuck surprises; come with me to the store and choosewhat you want among all the toys around.”

FINAL HIRIT

Sure I’m being slightly ironic here, but there’s a lessonto be gleaned: if it’s hard enough to look for gifts for people you know, howmuch more difficult, nay, disastrous is it for vote-seeking bureaucrats tosatisfy the people.

WHAT CAN IMPEACHED CHIEF JUSTICE CORONA DO AGAINST NOYNOY! ANYWAY?

2011-12-15T15:29:00.001+08:00

It’s too bad that Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona had to descend to the level of media statements against his counterpart leader in the executive (Noynoy!). Till Corona declared ‘war’ against elements of the administration seeking to take him down, he at least had the advantage of ‘being the better man (whatever that is worth).’

But really, what can Corona do, aside from arguing his case against a possibly biased Senate court in the impending impeachment trial? Noynoy! has all the guns, not to mention support of a populace that doesn’t quite perceive the threat posed by an arbitrary interpretation of ‘law.’

What does Corona have? His sheriff? The security guards in the Supreme Court compound in Padre Faura?

‘MERE TECHNICALITY’ VS. JUSTICE

Even if we grant that Corona is an ally of former president Gloria Arroyo, his votes in en banc decisions have their constitutional basis, and affirm human rights (at least in the case of GMA travelling). If the Supreme Court is to err, it is better to err on the side of rights protection.

The reason ‘mere technicality’ has won out, against Noynoy!’s vision of justice, is his prosecution’s fault. That is no reason to trash the court.

And if Noynoy! was to trash the court and its decisions, why not have the other GMA-appointed justices impeached? Why Corona alone? And is the House of Representatives so blind in their allegiance as to believe that decisions are written by one guy?

And why criticize the supposed court holiday when it belittles their decisions anyway?

By the way, I never watched this series.

OUT WITH THE OLD, IN WITH THE OLD!

It’s quite sad to see my friends who work in the Palace or Cabinet, take defense of this steamrolling. Being too close to the action probably bars their judgment.

I remember how during my time in the government, the Liberal Party was still a minority, i.e., Cory Aquino had not died yet.

Three years later, the Liberal Party is the new ‘Lakas.’

Someone who has gone through such a change and has come out ahead might be tempted to think that, finally, good has triumphed over evil. In truth, it’s simply a matter of transforming into the status quo.

Beware in fighting monsters, that you don’t become a monster yourself.

Below: Just a funny video with a steamroller in it. From the first ‘Austin Powers’ movie.

RENATO CORONA, SUPREME COURT CHIEF JUSTICE, IMPEACHED: DEMOCRACY RULES!

2011-12-12T22:15:00.001+08:00

Politics will always be a numbers game. This is even moreapparent in the Noynoy! administration than in the previous one.

Arroyo never managed to control the Palace, the SupremeCourt and Congress at the same time. But now, with the Chief Justice positionpotentially open pending a Senate verdict, Noynoy!, in the name or all that isholy, will have nothing to stop his Mandate of Heaven.

Not that I think he’s a bad guy, at least, not any worsethan a random politician. And I’ve always found anti-GMA dude Antonio Carpio a (relatively)better choice for chief justice.

But an imminent unrestrained expansion of government powers― including the setting of bad precedents and greater wanton spending ― is the worst threat,no matter how ‘nice’ the politician, no matter if he’s the brother of our dreamgirl Kris Aquino.

‘LA RAFLE (THE ROUNDUP)’ ― ONE OF THE BEST WWII MOVIES YOU’LL EVER SEE

2011-12-12T00:12:00.001+08:00

It’s not the dead you have to beware, it’s the living.

‘La rafle’ (2010) is better than ‘Schindler’s list.’ Nothing against Spielberg; each Holocaust tale is a unique one worth being heard by millions. But I really appreciate how writer-director Rose Bosch presents the roundup of 13,000 Jews in Vel’ d’Hiv, France with little sensationalism, making for a more convincing presentation of events.

Quite importantly, it shows how normal guys, upon wearing soldier uniforms, are made to do the cruelest things to their fellow people upon the say-so of higher powers. Some are totally gung-ho and eager to please, while others need all sorts of self-justification (“They’d shoot me... I have kids!”).

Either way, the amazing thing is that responsibility for such atrocities is shirked:

But that’s what the law says.

or maybe

Just following orders.

COMPASSION

But in the film, there are some soldiers (French ones) who saw the senselessness in the roundup. Whether it was by offering water, or offering to send messages to Jewish kin, these soldiers ― to the extent of their authority ― tried to ease the Jewish prisoners’ burden.

In one scene [Mini spoiler alert], a soldier is aware that the ID held by a young Jewish girl indicating she’s the non-Jewish wife of the chief plumber, is fake. Yet he simply hands her back the ID, saying “Well played.” It was in these small ways that the film pretends to show how lives were spared.[Spoiler alert off]

FREEDOM HAS ITS SCAR

[Kind of a spoiler alert] At the end of the film, the few survivors are evidently scarred for life. The very last scene, of one of the kids (Jo Weismann, an actual survivor), has him staring into space, as though in his mind, he is constantly on the lookout for a familiar face. An irresolution to the story is thus conveyed.[Spoiler alert off]

UNRESOLVED INDEED

After World War II, it doesn’t seem possible that mass murder could ever be tolerated anywhere in the world. After all, there’s the United Nations! And it’s the 20^thcentury for God’s sakes (well it was the 20^th century)!

Yet the 1960s saw Mao Zedong’s Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution that killed at least 30 million Chinese. In the 1970s, Pol Pot exterminated 1.5 million Cambodians, a quarter of the country’s population. And of course, the Middle East and Africa are replete with examples to this very day of slavery and terrorism. Even in the ‘land of the free,’ the US, the police state is ever-growing. And forget how central banking is the driving force of ‘the rich getting richer, the poor getting poorer,’ worldwide.

BUT WE’RE DIFFERENT FROM THE NAZIS!

Nationalism, as exhibited by Nazi sympathists, seems, to the average Filipino who appreciates platitudes like ‘Country above self’ and ‘Ialay sa inang bayan,’ as something totally alien. We seem to think that the majority of Germans in the 1930s were so stupid as to be duped by Hitler, whereas the ‘Give back to your country’ crowd is an honorable people of high-minded ideals. Such an attitude is total bullshit of course.

Once you get the idea that statements like ‘Save Philippine jobs’ or ‘Proudly Philippine made’ have any moral worth, you’re on the way to seeing human interactions as essentially conflict-based.

THE STATE IS AN EITHER/OR THING

Au contraire, society is based on cooperation of individuals under a private property framework. Conflict is the rule when governments are involved in any way. To the extent that markets are shunned, by definition, individuals’ control over their lives is shunned, in favor of elements of the state.

It would be a shame if, say a new war is started and you’re made to do things to others that you wouldn’t otherwise do, you excuse yourself by saying “But they made me do it.”

NOTE: I used to post my film reviews in my Free Market Movie Reviews blog, but what the hell, this blog is visited more. But really, do find a copy of this excellent film (make sure there are subtitles). It will and should stay with you.

NOYNOY! AN ANARCHIST! DOWN WITH THE STATE!

2011-12-07T13:46:00.001+08:00

Because punk is all about anarchy

“Isn’t this what you want,” a reader tells me, “forpeople to not heed the government? So why are you complaining when Noynoyignores the Supreme Court on moral grounds?”

It is true that I think that the state judiciary does notdispense justice. At least, it doesn’t do so on account of its coercive nature.

If a private property system were paramount, court decisionswould be recommendatory, where one is threatened with loss of social standing,as opposed to an attack on their person. A convict’s future interactions and transactions willbe limited to the degree that a judgment is given weight by other propertyowners.

WE’RE NOT FREE ENOUGH FOR THEM TO IGNORE THE COURTS

In the case of idol Noynoy! making pabida by chastisingCorona’s Supreme Court to Corona’s face, he is jeopardizing the means by whichordinary people can be protected from abuse of monopolistic police powers.

Free people should be freeto ignore court rulings if these go against the people’s sensibilities. But thething is, we’re not a free people. Fora constitutionally-created entity ― the executive ― to ignore the Constitution’sdelineation of powers, is the prelude to greater police infringements later on― all in the name of morality of course.

PARANG EDSA DAW, ULOL!

It’s not like Noynoy! can liken his defiance even to theEDSA revolutions. Otherwise, he would be able to assert that all Supreme Court decisions under Corona,and not just the ones unfavorable to the administration, are void. And hewouldn’t bother being represented in anyof the court’s pending cases either.

FINAL WORDS

Vote Noynoy! for Chief Justice!

It’s apparent that, failing to prosecute GMA on any legalbasis, Noynoy! and his idiot Cabinet are making bara-bara their moral rhetoric,without regard for the consequences later on.

Down with the judicial branch, yes, but this should besimultaneous with the dissolution of the executive and legislative.

Anarchy is the ideal. But unimpeded police states, not sogreat!

TWO QUESTIONS ABOUT NOYNOY!’S DEFENSE IN DEFYING THE SUPREME COURT

2011-12-06T00:46:00.001+08:00

1. If the Supreme Court has been discredited and the forces of good ride with your executive alone, why do youbother sending the DoJ to the Supreme Court hearings?

2. What’s to stop a futureadministration from invoking “Alam naman natin kung ano ang tama, at kung anoang mali” in justifying blatantly unconstitutional acts ― such as torture bygenital electrocution ― that it may undertake? Or does this ‘moral mandate’only last for the duration of your reign?

3. I know I said two questions, butlet me just use this moment to tell you WHAT A STUPID FUCKING IDIOT YOU ARE.AREN’T YOU? You think it’s helping things to be making careless rhetoric on how you don’t recognize the Supreme Court’s limitations to your conduct? Does slapping your large forehead count as a question?!

4. Sorry for shouting, but let me ask a fourth thing. Why do you not reprimand your idiot justice secretary Leila De Lima for the nonsense her office is spouting [See below]? She claims that the executive is beyond the Constitution even as it is created by the Constitution! Could you not get your damn legal team talking sensibly?

“The infringement of an individual’s right to travel is justified under the general principle of the exercise of the (state’s) police power... This is even outside of the constitutional consideration of national security, public safety and public health...” ― DoJ Secretary, former Commission on Human Rights chairman, and idiot militant extraordinaire Leila De Lima

BILL GATES SUPPORTS RH BILL (KIND OF); HE MUST BE RIGHT!

2011-12-02T08:20:00.001+08:00

How about drown these fuckers?
That will surely stimulate the economy!

MelindaGates, Bill’s significant other, was quoted by Rina Jimenez-David as saying:

“Family planning access is a cost-effective way tofoster development...”

Ergo,we should have the RH Bill passed.

I GOT AN IDEA

Ifthese activists are so keen on having ‘reproductive health’ made accessible tothe public, why don’t they work on repealing prohibitions on the trade ofcontraceptives, and the ban on awareness campaigns? That way, we take intoconsideration those who express reservations about the cost of a governmentprogram.

Source: funwithgovernment.blogspot.com
(Data from PIDS)

Wait... I’ve just been informed that THERE ARE NO LAWSPROHIBITING CONTRACEPTION OR THE DISCUSSION THEREOF. Why are these purple-ribbon wearers waiting for these bastards in Congress anyway?

THE RH BILL WON’T INCREASE PROSPERITY,DUMBASS!

My blogger friend Nonoy Oplas saidit best: Economic growth is about production, not reproduction. He cited thesehelpful tables, showing that in ASEAN, the Philippines is second only to Laos in terms ofworking-age population.

This means that there should be less dependents in the country, if only the capitalexisted and moved freely by which people could be employed!

FINAL WORD

Or let’s just pass the RH Bill nanga. Sayang naman all the purple ribbons, and all the mistaken opinions expressed. It would be embarrassing to recant now.

DE LIMA TO HUMAN RIGHTS: GO FUCK YOURSELF

2011-12-02T07:40:00.001+08:00

JusticeSecretary Leila De Lima actually said in oral arguments yesterday:

“The infringement of anindividual’s right to travel is justified under the general principle of theexercise of the police power... This is even outside of the constitutionalconsideration of national security, public safety and public health...”

And this was supposed to be a legal argument in front of the Supreme Court!

So the basis of the executive’s recent actions,apparently, is no basis at all but doing whatever the hell they want. It’s an admission that the state exists for itself.

Assuming that this power is wielded oh-so-wisely by thisadministration... how would such an interpretation of the executive’s authoritynot be abused in the future?

Such an attitude, if left uncorrected, would pose an evengreater threat than allowing a thief to go off scot-free.

Ah, the good ol’ days of Proclamation 1017.
At least GMA had better lawyers.

(In the GMA case, the damage has been done; what about focusingnow on preventive measures? Or is that too boring, PR-wise?)

See here, you arrogant idiot, mandates are meant to delimit power, so as to protect citizensfrom their government.

To assume that government, being ‘representative’ of thepeople, has no boundaries, has all the ‘right’ to interfere with people’slives, is a step closer to, perhaps even the guiding principle of, totalitarianism.

WHY DO WE RESORT TO VIOLENCE IN FACING SOCIAL PROBLEMS?

2011-11-29T18:02:00.001+08:00

To be honest, my analysis is not going to penetrate too deep inanswering the question raised in the title above. At most, I will have shownthings for what they really are, and this might aid someone who is sincere infurthering their understanding of political systems.

THANKS, ‘STEF’ (feeling close a!)

It is Stefan Molyneux whom I would credit the most for raisingawareness of the relevance of child rearing as a means of understanding whypeople look to the state as a remedy for social ills, even as it has been shownsince the dawn of civilization that the government is the very manifestation ofsuch a malady.

Basically, the careless attitude is: there’s a need for so-and-so,so the government should do this and that^*.

Not a dramatization. Just a photo I saw on the ’net.

WHEN I WAS NINE YEARS OLD

In fourth grade, I had a teacher, Miss Messina. Mukhang mataraybut she wasn’t totally horrible. Except for this one time, the humiliation ofwhich has stayed with me for over two decades now.

At the end of our Christian Life Education class, she made me andmy classmates stand up. And then she told us, “Now squat.”

Although known as a form of punishment, none of us had doneanything to warrant her command. But we squatted anyway. Because she said so.

After telling us to stop squatting, she gave her explanation,which amounted to “I can make you do anything I want.” I’m paraphrasing, butnot by much.

WHAT WAS HER POINT?

I doubt my other classmates remember this incident, but it’s aprime example of how outside authority has usurped free choice and use ofreason. When Miss Messinas ‘prove’ to impressionable kids looking for guidancethat might makes right, is it really a surprise that they grow up with analmost reverential attitude towards government ‘benevolence?’

Indeed, she may simply have been trying to show who’s the boss inclass. Or she may have wanted us to place our trust in her, she who was onlyacting for our welfare. Or any number of reasons that sound, coincidentally,like campaign speeches (‘common good,’ ‘unity,’ ‘good governance,’ ‘strong leadership,’ etc.)!

SHED OFF THE STATE IN TIME, OR DIE IN THE PROCESS

Of course, I can’t blame a simple-minded teacher for all that iswrong with the world. But such acts, which are tantamount to abuse, aresymptoms of a rotten and predominant mentality yet to be outgrown.

In fact, when or if the state is finally shed from society, this wouldonly be part of an overall change in attitudes ― but not a change in human nature. The pursuit of self-interest andprofit will remain, but directed towards longer- and longer-term endeavors. Infact, social evolution from the days of savage hunters to the present, has beenabout the pursuit of profit, only that over time, individuals’ timeframes expand,making for peaceful and mutually beneficial coexistence.

_____________

* And if you somehow get it through people’s heads that they areresorting to violence as a substitute for peaceful interactions, they might saythat government is a necessary bad; people are either too stupid orhard-headed to do what’s good for them, unless by force.

But further quiz them on how they imagine this government to beappointed or held any more accountable than an ungoverned and supposed stupidconstituency, and you’ll be given a half-hearted suggestion of ‘checks andbalances’ (did the division between executive and judicial branches do anythingto resolve the recent NAIA standoff? and hasn’t the legislature always been thepawn of the executive? etc.), or perhaps they would provide a deluded vision ofan all-wise dictatorship that punishes ‘useless scum’ but otherwise doesn’tinterfere in everyday affairs (Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot weren’t up to it but let’sgive someone else a shot).

NOYNOY BECOMES FARMER; JEERED BY HACIENDA LUISITA CRITICS

2011-11-25T08:27:00.001+08:00

A closeup of Aquino’s purported handiwork

MANILA ― President Noynoy Aquino has planted rice seeds over a 2x2m. patch of land in the back of his presidential home, which technically makes hima farmer.

The chief executive made the claim yesterday in Malacañang, and presentedhis handiwork to members of the media.

“As you can see, I am, for all intents and purposes, a farmer,”Aquino said.

CRITICISM

The move has already been met with criticism not just from the opposition,but among the general public, and even some allies.

“Let it go,” said a prominent Cabinet member and former AgrarianReform secretary who requested anonymity. “People can see right through yourplan.”

Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago, a former DAR chief herself, wasmore forthright, in claiming that Aquino’s new occupation was “part of an epalplot ― no pun intended! ― for the epal Cojuangcos to regain control over HaciendaLuisita.”

Santiago was referring to the 5,000-hectare property in Tarlac thatthe Supreme Court has recently ruled to be distributed among farmers, theoriginal beneficiaries of the land when it was entrusted to the Cojuangco familyby the original Spanish owners over half a century ago.

STEP BY STEP

“First he becomes an epal farmer. Then he makes singit his epal nameamong the list of beneficiaries. Then he ‘convinces’ the otherfarmers that he should be the one to divide the land. And through such epal,the Cojuangcos will once more own Hacienda Luisita.

“And then it’s another 50 years of legal wrangling. Sina James Yapthe 3rd na ang mag-aasikaso n’on. Epal talaga,” explained last-termer Santiago,who has generated positive publicity through her ‘anti-epal’ bill, which willban the placing of names and pictures of politicians on public works projects.

SINCERE DESIRE TO FARM

The president, who is still deciding whether to accede to the high court, dismissed such suspicions as baseless.

“Therewill be those who doubt my sincerity, and to them I say, can’t anyone, least ofall a president, take an interest in farming? Sideline lang naman e. And if nilapitanako to take a share of my family’s property, then that’s out of my hands,”Aquino said.

“Can’t you critics just leave me alone? Pasko naman e!” he added,before launching into a full-blown hissy fit.

NOT JUST AQUINO…

Santiago and others are not so easily convinced, however,especially in light of rumors that Aquino’s second-degree uncle and San Miguel Corp. ChairmanDanding Cojuangco has planted some seedings himself.

“How epal is that?” quipped Santiago, who doesn’t know how to quiteither.

DoJ’S LEILA DE LIMA: MAY ‘BALLS’ NGA BA?

2011-11-20T21:48:00.001+08:00

My friends are divided with regards to the wholeDoJ-Leila-de-Lima-stopping-GMA-and-Mike-Arroyo-at-NAIA thing. Some see it ascourageous or ballsy (no relation to Noynoy!’s sister), while others (includingmyself) think the manner in which things were done will have its negativerepercussions not just with the GMA case but with the executive’s intrusioninto our lives in general.

“BALANCED NEWS, FEARLESS VIEWS”

And then here comes the comedy periodical Inquirer making a big deal abouthow De Lima stood up to GMA at the airport. In the first place, hindi namansiya e, it was her minions doing the confronting. In the second place, it’s DeLima, as part of the present administration, that has the coercive resources tobully.

No relation!

THE PARABLE OF THE BALLSY SCHOOLBOY

And consider the act itself. Imagine astudent, given 15 months to study for his exam. And what does he do? He dawdles, maybe creates an “A+ Commission,” basically just wanking the time away until he realizes, Shiet, exam na tonight sa NAIA! Andwhat can he do? He’s desperate. So ico-codigo na lang niya! ‘Balls’ indeed.

But he’s somewhat careful. He bullies his classmate from Pasay tohelp him cram, just so that in case he is unable to use his codigo, he hassomething to which he can resort. And he thus arrests his test!

FIGHT SC FIRE WITH DOJ FIRE ― TANGINANG MAGKAPIT-BAHAY LANG MGA ’TOA! WHY NOT JUST THROW ROCKS AT EACH OTHER AND SPARE THE COUNTRY?

Okay so the analogy is kind of mixed up but you get the point. Theactions of the DoJ, and the administration in general, have been disgraceful. Tworailroadings don’t make a right.

ARREST WARRANT ISSUED AGAINST ARROYO FOR ELECTORAL FRAUD; WHEELS OF JUSTICE INDEED!

2011-11-18T18:08:00.001+08:00

What a joke. All of a sudden, the wheels of justice are moving again, at least in the electoral fraud case against Arroyo.

If it only took a week lang pala,why could the warrants not have been issued back in August 2010 pa (rhetorical)? What a coincidence naman that the Pasay judge got off their ass on the same week Arroyo tried to flee (sarcastic)!

Pa-truth-commission-truth-commission-PR-stunt-eklat pa kasi noon e.

The railroaded rulings and issuances on both sides go to showwhat a sham politics is. Truly, without property rights being paramount,anything goes.

Related article: DOJ stops Arroyos from fleeing; Chilling effect of undue process

DOJ STOPS ARROYOS FROM FLEEING; CHILLING EFFECT OF UNDUE PROCESS

2011-11-16T08:14:00.001+08:00

In a desperate attempt to save face, the Noynoy! administration has barred Gloria Arroyo and former FG Mike Arroyo from leaving.

The basis for holding them is unclear, as the Supreme Court already cited ‘presumption of innocence’ in stopping the DoJ from keeping them in the Philippines.

INVOKING ‘SOMETHING’S FISHY’

Granted that the Arroyos really are a bunch of crooks, state prosecutors ought to have prepared a case earlier on.

The Aquino administration has been around for 15 months, but the best that DoJ Secretary Leila De Lima can come up with is muse about how something fishy must be going on:

There is an intention to leave the country immediately, and that is puzzling to us.

THANK GOD FOR BUREAUCRACY

Seeking to justify keeping Arroyo from boarding the plane, De Lima says her office has not received a copy of the Supreme Court’s temporary restraining order (TRO), which would at earliest be received this morning. Talk about taking advantage of snail-paced bureaucracy!

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF A TRO

I’m not a legal expert but this is the first time I heard of a motion for reconsideration to quash a TRO. Kaya nga ‘temporary’ e! That’s like the DoJ issuing a TRO itself to override the government’s highest court.

Even Marcos took the time to suspend the writ of habeas corpus in declaring martial law. But De Lima is making shit up as she goes along!

THIS CAN AFFECT YOU TOO

Lumalabas ang pagka-militante ni De Lima. This legal bending is setting a new precedent, that regardless of what a court order says, the executive branch can violate anyone’s right to free movement (and other rights) on the flimsiest of premises.

Somehow, some way, all this is going to backfire on us Filipinos. 10 years from now, and with another corrupt government in power, the ‘De Lima case’ will be invoked so as to continue committing one atrocity or another.

Say, if the DoJ (not even this one headed by De Lima) resorts to torturing people, and the court issues a TRO, the DoJ can wave this away by simply saying “We’re filing an MR,” and go on torturing.

FINAL REMARK

We should all be wary of any government body resorting to undue process, just because its legal team is so incompetent.

BYE-BYE GLORIA, BYE-BYE 'KUNG WALANG CORRUPT...'

2011-11-15T23:10:00.001+08:00

It looks like the Gloria Arroyo-appointed Supreme Court is going to letArroyo get away for a mere P2-million bond.

So much for the anti-corruption campaign of the Noynoy! Noynoy!Noynoy! administration. But really, the problem kasi with the whole ‘Kungwalang corrupt, walang mahirap’ gimmick is its misdiagnosis of the problem.

OVERCONCENTRATION OF POWER

The problem is not so much that such plunder happened, but that sucha degree of power is foisted on ‘representatives’ of the people, who inevitablyabuse such power in some way or another.

The ‘Jail Arroyo’ campaign was a hopeless thing from thebeginning, in the same way that Erap managed to go scot-free shortly after hisconviction in 2007.

ELIMINATE POLITICAL POWER, ELIMINATE CORRUPTION

A real anti-corruption campaign would focus less on punitive orreactive measures, and more on prevention. That is, it would curb the capacityof individuals to redistribute resources in ways that are not in accordancewith the market.

Anti-corruption is about reducing, if not eliminating, politicalpower. And one has to first see through the hollow promises of both sincere andinsincere statesmen.

FINAL REMARKS

The state doesn’t work. At all. I am convinced that ― taking anon-chaos theory or non-amor fati viewof events ― in all of history, there has been no net gain from the existence ofthe state or statist elements.

Just imagine. Try to conceive how much the government permeatesinto our existence. Every field, every sector, nakikialam ang gobyerno. And itturns out that it is not just for naught, but in fact counterproductive tosocial order. It kills, by the millions. Such a waste!

Following such a lamentation, it is of small matter that I couldn’tfind an artful way to conclude this article.

Mentalities have yet to evolve. And all we pioneers of liberty can do is try to enjoy the wait.