Apropos Austrian Aphorisms

Many people perhaps dream of an executive position in a wealthy, well-to-do business. To manage and direct people! to be the boss. But few people are. The reason should be obvious: it takes a certain kind of skill and talent to successfully direct the fortunes of a business that captures a certain sector of the market and appeals to a mass of people.

Yet far many more people have the skill and talent to sit back and criticize others, especially if they are wealthy. But few people are in a more prestigious position to criticize others, such as Kathie Lee Gifford. Only a few minutes ago was she hosting The Today Show, holding a newspaper up and pointing to the questioning of oil executives, stamping her frustration about their excessive personal earnings. This followed her coverage of the recent decision by airlines to charge a new fee of $15 for the first bag checked on an airline, which this forthcoming charge is tied to rising gas prices. And the news reports Kathie displayed on her show referred to "skyway robbery." Indeed, a voluntary exchange between business and consumer for a nominal fee for the rising cost of business is robbery!

I wonder how "excessive" Kathie's earnings are to sit in a chair for hours on a day and offer her unfounded accusations. Of course, airlines aren't engaging in robbery, and oil executives are not making more than they should at the expense of the public. Their prices, which the public accepts and drives, are part and parcel and largely symptomatic of government intervention. Inflation, the blocking of new refineries, gasoline taxes, and an interventionist foreign policy are the catalysts of oil executives and airline managers asking for higher prices, which the public accepts.

Ron Paul was every so often questioned during his more public run for the White House about his environmental stance. Is the United States government supposed to drive alternative energy? No! he always said, the market should drive energy. If the price of gas becomes too much a burden on people then the market will seek alternatives on its own. The government, has no role in energy, as it does not with anything else. Education of this point is the starting point for tomorrow's show.

Greed is a deadly sin, and it is an oft-propagated malapropos market malapropism. This will be a short post with one question.

How can sellers be greedy when buyers determine prices?

I am now an official graduate of Iowa State University. Yes, a government public university. I feel accomplished, rightfully so, for graduating with a degree from an institution of "higher learning." My mother is proud of me. Am I proud? Yes/no. I'm proud of my hard work and intellectual progress. I'm not proud of doing it at the expense of others who were extorted to fund my education. I certainly did not feel  as proud as I should have during my graduation ceremony, which was an exercise in state idolatry.

The worshipping began fairly quickly with the "presentation of the colors," which was a 15-second staring contest with the American flag in silence. Following that was the chant of the country, the National Anthem. You know, that thing that says "the land of the free."

Following this, the student speaker was introduced. His credentials were staggering. He was a double major in political science and psychology, interned with an Iowa senator and worked with a lobbying group. What a great student, so eager to assist the State and lobby on its behalf to use other people's money! What a free land. And then the student speaker offered a wonderful speech that "said something different" with the usual platitudes about college life.

Then came the faculty speaker, head of the university's political science department. A man who appeared on CNN in NY Times Square, once! This was the highlight of the night. It was a 15 minute message of doom and gloom to the graduating class about all the ills of the world and how so many things are wrong. "We're facing a food shortage," or "oil prices are continuously rising," and a bunch of other things in between global warming and global cooling that our generation has to fix because we can't "take it easy"—and apparently make the world worse like his generation, "the generation of the 60s," did.

The highlight of this highlight speech was the plug for his own profession. "Politics is important because that's where decisions are made," he said. At this point I nearly rose from dozing off to shout, "You mean the market is where decisions are made!" I have always held a great disdain for the bromide that politics are "important because that's where decisions are made." My former news editor held to this profession, despite being a libertarian. No, politics is not, nor should it be, important because that's where decisions are made. Decisions shouldn't be made there in the first place; they should be made in the market, where real choices exist and where real voluntary exchange occurs.

There are some graduates who witness a moving ceremonial speech at their commencement. Those are the ones who will likely remember it for years and tell people about their riveting experience. Mine was not riveting, but I'll remember it because it was so filled with despair and the call for more politics. And I will tell people, as I am now, to say, "No! No more politics; things are bad enough."

But I lied. The doom and gloom speech wasn't the highlight. The highlight was crossing the stage, shaking hands, only to step off stage and receive a nice picture ... not in front of the university's logo or anything to do with the university. No, everyone had the great national pleasure to have their picture taken in front of the American flag and the Iowa state flag. All thank the state for our education! It could not have happened otherwise!

Other than the state worshipping, the ceremony was nice. I just wish I could've worn something other than a gown ... like those military men who were allowed to wear their fancy military clothes and received special recognition for their departments of military, navy, and other useless armed forces science departments. All hail the state!

It seems Hollywood may take a few years to catch up to the message of Ron Paul. Below is my gist of the newest Hollywood blockbuster, the superhero movie Iron Man, in bullets. Here's a quick synopsis: The main character, Tony Stark, heads a successful arms company, Stark Industries. He is captured by guerillas in Afghanistan and he subsequently escapes via his first creation of the Iron Man. During his capture, Stark realizes an ugly part of war: the enemy can end up with the same weapons as the good guys. In this case, the weapons Stark produces for the U.S. military end up in the hands of the Afghan guerillas. Upon his return to America, Stark has a revelation: Arms dealing is bad. As figurehead for his company, Stark holds a press conference to announce his change of heart. However, everything's not so simple and rosy. Stark's partner-in-business, Obadiah Stane, is too greedy for the profits of war to let Stark do as he wants. Thus is the protagonism/antagonism of the film, setting the stage for the epic showdown.

So here are the messages the film conveys.

• War itself is not bad—only war profiteering and arms manufacturing is bad.
• Greedy war profiteers are responsible for arming bad men around the world.
• Problems of war will stop if you simply remove the bad men. There is no other source of the problem.
• U.S. involvement in the Middle East is good because many bad men exist there.
  

And here are the messages the film doesn't convey.

• The problems in Afghanistan are part and parcel because of U.S. involvement in the area.
• War profiteering on the part of greedy businessmen is boosted by the war profiteering of a country's military policy.

Iron Man would be the first big-hit movie of the summer for the ilk of John McCain or Hilary Clinton; i.e., those who don't believe in the message of Ron Paul that turmoil in the Middle East is facilitated by the United States government. So for now, until the message sinks in, moviegoers can plan on seeing more movies that rely on the stereotypes that the Middle East needs the United States, that big business is greedy and corrupt (especially the arms industry), and that war itself is not bad but only the existence of powerful weapons. I'm sure the counter message would sink in faster had Ron Paul advanced further into the minds of American philosophy and politics, but this is why people, part and parcel, enjoy movies: for fantasy. Sometimes believing in superheroes is easier than electing one.

By no means is finding someone to espouse the greatness of universal literacy a chore, especially among politicians. Yet for all of their pandering, these very politicians would never desire for people to be literate on one subject matter: government itself. If the public were ever clued into the innerworkings of the government, government would cease to be. What other explanation can there be for why the law is not required reading in government schools? The government wants an ignorant population.

I received a parking ticket the other day for parking against the flow of traffic in the adjacent lane. What a silly law, I thought! Let the roads be privatized and we'll see if such an absurd parking restriction would stand. It certainly doesn't in the parking lots of any business for many people often "pull through" a parking spot or back into a parking spot to park against the flow of traffic. I then asked myself, "How was I supposed to know such parking was illegal?" The only parking signs around stated only the times I could park on that side of the street. No, I, the average citizen, was expected to have taken it upon myself to read and digest every aspect of the law to know what I was and wasn't allowed to do. Such is the result in a society that does not respect property and voluntary exchange—everything is subject to the whims of the State.

Why wouldn't the government require reading of the law in its schools, just as it does of its propaganda (i.e., American history textbooks)? Surely an understanding of what you can and cannot do is just as important as an understanding of how just and right our government has been throughout history is to developing a sense of patriotism.

But to think this is to misunderstand the purpose of the State. Government can exist only so long as it has a means to provide for itself. Its only means of provision are what it receives from its populace through taxes (i.e., theft). And, as Butler Shaffer points out, government relies upon you breaking its laws for continued revenue—revenue at a level optimal for further intrusion into the lives of its citizens. If the citizens knew what the laws were they wouldn't break them so easily and ignorantly! Why, if that happened, the government would have far fewer people to incarcerate and extort for its own subsistence. The government lives by the death of others, which is why it promotes and tolerates ignorance.

The proper understanding of the State is a fundamental educational bulwark to its encroachment and growth. Instead of the government's legal texts being required reading, the only required legal reading should be Frederic Bastiat's The Law.

My rhetoric class is now reading articles about the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. The topic is very intriguing, and many in class have professed a wonder about how they had never heard much about the subject growing up through their education, largely public. Hmm! Little coverage of the enslavement of a certain classification of people by the government in government schools? Shocking!

Today we are to listen to a professor from my university who, as a three-month-old child, was interned with his family. I plan to ask him the following question:

Sir, the internment of Japanese-Americans is very disturbing and an unfortunate history. I have been fascinated reading the thoughts of certain Japanese-Americans, such as Mike Masaoka, who have written on and described their experience during the time. In a piece we read for class from They Call Me Moses Masaoka, Mr. Masaoka explains the willingness of many Japanese-Americans to comply with the American government's harsh and unjust curtailment of their constitutional, natural, and inalienable rights. This willingness occurred, in part, because of the want to be seen as loyal and faithful to the American government. Many faithfully believed they would receive their property after the end of their internment, and would, in the end, be treated properly. Such was not the case. Now, in the War on Terror, we have seen many strikingly similar moves on the part of the American government to pass legislation severely curtailing the liberties of people and many unjust incarcerations of so-called enemy combatants. Yet many continue to put stock and faith in the actions of the American government that it is only doing what is safe, right, just, and proper. But history shows the exact opposite, for when a government grabs excessive power it does not relinquish it easily and satisfactorily. Many people do not believe the recurring problem resides with government itself but merely the inadequate elected to government. My question, for you, then, is: Why do people continue to blindfully believe in the just and proper exercise of government when it continually displays an egregious attitude for injustice?

 Within my study of technical communication I rarely encounter economic and philosophic ideas. But every once in a while some come along, especially because the current topic in my lone rhetoric class is laissez faire capitalism. So here are a few I encountered today.

1. Copyright laws, or intellectual property laws in general, are necessary for people to profit from their labor.
   

   In my print production processes class a discussion on copyright laws and legal protection with regard to the use of typefaces and fonts was raised. There were druthers raised not so much about the validity of such laws but actual enforcement (as I raised the question asking how prevalent court cases involving type fonts were). The conversation dwindled off with a shrug-of-the-shoulders comment from one woman after sort of questioning the need for type front copyrights, saying, "I guess I'd want to be compensated if I created a type face."
   
   This is an issue I've encountered often recently in my debates against intellectual property: People are afraid creators, inventors, et cetera. won't be given their just payment for their work if there aren't laws to enforce the protection of their created works. My first response to this concern would be related to something I read out of The Quotable Mises last night; and Mises states, "The buyers do not pay for the toil and trouble the worker took nor for the length of time he spent in working. They pay for the products." Precisely: When people exchange money for a good they are not paying the wages of the worker who produced their purchased good; they are exchanging money, quite a matter of fact, for the good. The wage of the worker — that is, the money exchanged for the worker's service — occurs similarly. When a worker is paid, his employer exchanges money for a good just as the consumer exchanges money for a product. It just so happens that in the employer's case he is exchanging money for the service of the worker. And the worker? He is exchanging his labor — manifested in the products he produces for the consumer — for payment, money: a wage.
   
   No compulsion of law enforces this transaction. Nay, it is the perceived mutual benefit of all parties involved that brings about the worker, the creator, the inventor's payment. If someone creates a type font he will be compensated because a) he was paid to create a novel type front or b) he already created a novel type font and someone values the permission of the type front's creator over a certain sum of payment — i.e., licensing of the type font. Cooperation, not compulsion, brings about compensation; intellectual property laws are a form of compulsion.

2. The amount of wealth one accrues is proportional to the amount of work one undertakes.
   

   This theme recurs everyday in my rhetoric class over our current subject of capitalism. We are reading selected works by men such as Horatio Alger, Andrew Carnegie, William H. Councill: all of whom profess their undying admiration for man's mortal toil to accumulate as much wealth as possible. Thus, by their mere inclusion, and exclusion of any other competing idea as the de facto view of what capitalism involves, the argument presented to my class equates capitalism with excessive wealth for excessive toil — that any shortcoming or poverty of life is owed to each man's fault and inability to work greatly. These are more lifestyle pontifications by these men and not economic treatises. The fundamental fact that capitalism is an economic system, whereby the means of production are privately owned and goods are massively produced, is conveniently ignored. Instead the focus is on the view that capitalism involves cutthroat competition where any man can act as he wishes and profits how he likes, even at the expense of others. The respect for private property rights is, as well, conveniently ignored.
   
   That this economic fact of capitalism is overlooked might have been enough for me to shake my head at, if only the other economic idea — that a man's wealth is proportional to his toil — weren't so prevalent. This myopic view smacks me of a biased capitalist view, which is that the fundamentals of laissez faire economics are derived from Adam Smith; namely, the value theory of labor, which is to say that the value of a product is contained in how much labor produced it, and, as I stated above, to believe this is to err. The topic of any other school of laissez faire economics never enters the picture. My class is left to believe that it is equated with the labor theory of value, which is in error. This glaring truism should smack it down forthright; that is, many men have profitted greatly with little effort at all simply by understanding the wants of consumers and satisfying a market demand. A laborer will accumulate wealth insofar as he is able to satisfy the masses, which is to say a laborer's value is as great as the subjective valuation of the many for what he offers them.

3. The absence of government assumes the benevolence of man.
   

   I've also encountered this recently in debates over the unnecessary evil that is government.This belief briefly revealed itself in my rhetoric class today as well. A short discussion ensued over an editor's footnote in our book as to the definition of socialism and anarchism as understood in the 19th century (as the period of capitalism studied is of the same time). My professor's definition of anarchism was simply socialism without government and people would simply get along, and the class was left to believe a) that this is, still, the only definition of anarchism (with no regard for anarcho-capitalism, which she probably has no knowledge of), and b) that humans are all good and, left to themselves, will treat each other fairly. As a scoff from the back of the room revealed, this notion is absurd: Men are not all benevolent and will do harm to others. And this leaves out any idea that a social system existing without government is capable of handling the problem of bad men infringing upon good men. Again, by the basis of exclusion, uninformed students are left to assume certain untenable "truths."

4. Employers "rob" their employees by paying them a low wage.
   

   This belief briefly presented itself when I prompted my professor to elaborate on an editor's footnote that described Cornelius Vanderbilt as a railroad baron. I asked her what was meant by "railroad baron," as the footnote simply made a claim about this man without backing it up with any biography or history of the man. My professor proceeded to tell me how this was a negative term and was used to characterize people who "robbed" their employees; that is, the employers paid their employees an unjustified low wage. What a justified wage is she did not explain, nor did she explain why these employees would accept "being robbed," if they were. Again, exclusion is the rule by which "truth" is formed.

"I'm all lost in the supermarket
can no longer shop happily
I came in here for that special offer
A guaranteed personality"               Lost in the Supermarket, The Clash

In the most recent Republican debate, candidate Rudy Giuliani professed his belief that English language proficiency should be required of all new immigrants. Invariably, the response among libertarians will differ over immigration — some will believe the State has a proper role in admitting new people into its land; others believe the decision should be left up to rightful property owners. Each case will dictate proper language proficiency, then, it will be stated. But what role, if any, should the State play in dictating language? Its role should be as it is with any other: absent, letting the market determine its use.

Language is a marketable skill: It is a tool used by individuals to communicate and cooperate with each other. Its value varies accordingly with employers as some will value clear, concise communication over others, and other employers won't mind so much if their employees can recognize the distinction between its (possessive) and it's (contraction). Thus, language in the market is as important as it is valued as a useful tool. Just as the State should not regulate whether an employee's skills are fit for an employer, such as if an IT employee truly knows how to set up a computer network, so too should the State absolve its involvement in determining a potential employee's language for his marketability for hire.

In a society that holds proper respect for property rights, it should follow that only property owners should rightfully determine role of language. If English is valued over Spanish throughout society and an immigrant lands within society unable to adequately speak English, but can speak Spanish well, then a few possibilities present themselves. The most obvious is that the Spanish-speaking immigrant will not be hired and he will have to resign himself to improving his marketability by learning English. A more costly possibility, for employers, is to hire the Spanish speaker and train him not only with regard to whatever the job's task is, but also in speaking English. The market, not the State, will decide the role of language.

The recent popular television show Lost displays this situation well (at least one aspect it displays with good libertarian method!). A Korean-speaking couple is stranded among a group of people who speak only English. The Korean-speaking couple often works aloof the rest of the group with little ability to communicate. The division of labor and respect for property is tested and at odds by the incompatibility of language. However, after a while the language incompatibility takes a backseat to the more marketable skills of the couple. The man, Jin, is able to catch fish and provide food for many of the stranded survivors on the island. He is then compensated accordingly. Further on in Season 1, the man begins work with an English-speaking man named Michael, who is attempting to build a raft to leave the island. Jin's ability to work, without language, as Michael desires, values, and needs for the completion of the raft, overcomes the difference in the two mens' speech. Had Rudy Giuliani been present on the island administered a test for admittance to the island's English-speaking group Jin would've never found employment with Michael, and Michael's work would have suffered!

The State's ability to determine what language is proper is also more fundamentally noisome. A law dictating what language(s) should or should not be spoken and used is, at its heart, a law regulating free speech; that is, such a law violates an individual's property right over his own body to guide his own speech and thoughts. There is perhaps no greater reason to oppose language laws. That some public schools even go so far as to barring students from speaking a language other than English on school grounds should give some kind of hint as to how grossly and unjustly the State spreads its power over language, rather than letting the market decide its proper role.

There is no reason for individuals to be lost in the language market: they should have the freedom to voluntarily contract with language as they wish; otherwise, they can no longer speak happily. When many emigrate to the United States for the special offer of freedom and its guaranteed free personality, then the freedom to use one's own property, such as in the faculties of body language, should be respected under the rule of law. 

 A recent debate topic on Facebook's Politics poll was whether you supported Mike Huckabee's FairTax plan. The FairTax is a splendid example for examining language and economics. Let's not mince words: The FairTax is not fair. It is an ugly euphemism designed to receive support. Eliminate the IRS and replace it with a simpler tax code that is fair? Sure! exclaim many. No! I say. Let the IRS die and the rest of the tax code with it. Here are three responses to common arguments regarding the FairTax.

• The FairTax is not "fair"; there's nothing fair about taxation — what would be called theft if any private individual were standing between you and your purchase extracting a benevolent 23 percent. As Murray Rothbard noted about the FairTax, it's essentially a "pay to live" tax: You must relinquish 23% of your purchase, whether it be a plasma television or a Thanksgiving turkey. The FairTax says this: The government must be involved in every purchase you make; there is no privacy between consumer and provider.
  
  
• The FairTax is not "simplification." The IRS may be gone, but another bureacracy is put in its place. The idea behind eliminating the IRS, as Ron Paul argues, is not because it's complex or confusing, but because it is illegitimate. The federal government should be reduced, not tinkered with. The elimination of the IRS, with nothing to replace it, forces the federal government to behave constitutionally because it cannot extort payment from every individual to finance the myriad federal functions not authorized by the Constitution.
  
  
• The FairTax is finally fair to rich people! No more progressive taxation under the ugly income tax — a tax that penalizes you for being more productive. And this is why some people oppose the FairTax; it is because now the rich are taxed as the poor are. The rich must relinquish more! they say. And how much more? And who is rich? Who determines these arbitrary constructions? What obligates the "rich" man to give to the "poor" man? There is no norm to establish this creed, which is why it has no answer and no substance.

As all popular federal governments do, the national sales tax (i.e., the FairTax) will grow over time. What is the harm in 1% more? And then another 1 percent? It must be noted: the proposed 23% is to cover current expenditures. What happens, as we've unfortunately seen over the past centuries, when the federal government spends more? The sales tax must be increased proportionately. Who determines the correct percentage? And is the sales tax on top of already existing state sales tax and "sin taxes," e.g., cigarettes?

 The FairTax must be rejected for what it is: A farce. There is no simple, no just tax. Repeal them all!

 I remember in the younger days of my still-youthfulness some clever folk talking about the rural area in which I grew up as "not even important enough to have a stoplight."

These folk spoke pejoratively, as if any town small enough were not important enough, not progressed, not civilized enough. Your town is backward! Only important people can be managed and regulated by three alternating colors, these folk thought. And the misguided mind I happened to be at times in my youth I believed them! Stoplights cost money, halted lots of traffic, and displayed a cold, charcoal grandeur among the city's otherwise beautiful landscape. Where was my town's grand landmark to bring about the screeching of stopping cars, the crashing of red-light collisions, and the financing of the local government through failure to stop according to the Law of the Color Red fines?

 I remembered these youthful memories today upon reading a new report I'm editing at work, dealing with red light running. And I remembered reading recently about how some cities have opted to forgo entirely traffic sign regulation. No stop signs. No yield signs. No Law of the Color Red. Traffic navigation was to be left entirely up to the free association of the cities' people. What chaos, a firm follower of the Law of the Color Red, must think! No colors to tell people when to go, when to stop? Think of the discombobulation, or the snail-like speed traffic must move at to make sure not to bump and harass itself.

How, this report asks, can we decrease red light running? prevent crashes? decrease horrible traffic incidents?

And some have the audacity to say: Let the people move as they please, let them figure it out; remove these colors of obstruction!

You know, the irony, is these magical cities of freedom are actually working, with few incidents, no tragic ones, and steady flows of traffic moving faster than before.  I think of those clever folk and how I'm glad I grew up in an area without stoplights. We were allowed to drive in a freer manner, to associate with other traffic in a sensible manner (albeit we still had our share of stop signs). 

To my delight! did I finally indulge in the literary wonder of Garet Garrett. My first selection: The People's Pottage; specifically, The Revolution Was. What a joy it is to read Garrett's mastery of language, his figurations and metaphors, that exposes the government for what it is: A filthy thief layered in meretricious clothing.

 And what apropos Austrian aphorism did I find in particular? How language changes and how clever sneaking liars use language to inhibit, belittle, and denigrate liberty and sovereignty.

Quoting Garrett from Page 17 in how the revolution of the New Deal came in part to be:

"the marvelous technic of bringing [the revolution] to pass not only within in the form but within the word, so that people were all the while fixed in the delusion that they were talking about the same things because they were using the same words. Opposite and violently hostile ideas were represented by the same word signs."

Then, quoting again from Page 9 when Garrett speaks of the already vast semantic shift 20 years after the arrival of The New Deal:

"freedom itself has come to be regarded as a reactionary word....And the mere thought of America first, associated as that term is with isolationism, has become a liability so extreme that politicians feel obliged to deny ever having entertained it."

And where are we 50 years after Garrett penned these words? We are where presidential candidate Ron Paul is denigrated by the media and other politicians (most recently and famously John McCain) as being an isolationist for thinking of American sovereignty first and wanting to remove the policing American troops from around the world, to avoid entangling alliances. Garet Garrett not only prophesied the impending crisis of the financial bubble as The Great Depression, how The New Deal subverted American politics and philosophy, but also foretold many decades ahead of how language will be used to still subvert liberty.

 I am already glad I have found GG

To begin my Austrian blog about language relating to Austrian economics, I will first touch on taxation. Specifically, how do people talk about taxes?

First, people always ascribe an adjective to some sort of taxation. I state this because adjectives limit nouns; so, taxes are always limited by the way people speak about a sales tax, income tax, et cetera. It's rarely about taxation devoid of limitations; that is,  no taxation, which is what we ultimately should want.

Second,  it's curious that one of the adjectival taxations people mention is lower taxes. Not necessarily a removal of any taxes. People just want the percent of which they're currently taxed to be decreased, not the percentage of taxes in total. There's a difference between percent and percentage, and when speaking about taxes we should say fewer taxes.

 And, of course, lower taxation on those fewer taxes