When you think about government and like I, was reading Plato’s Republic on democracy and tyrants, you begin to wonder about how were we able to so peacefully transition with a contested election. Had this been a Roman election there would have been blood or the very least mysterious deaths. When Plato mentions what it takes to get a democracy, which he believes is revolution, he also mentions what it takes to get a dictator. This is what Plato has to say:

“When a democracy which is thirsting for freedom has evil cupbearers presiding over the feast, and has drunk too deeply of the strong wine of freedom, then, unless her rulers are very amenable and give a plentiful draught, she calls them to account and punishes them, and says that they are cursed oligarchs.”

With current bailout, we treat Wall Street like a bunch of drunken fools “too deeply of the strong win of freedom.” We allow Secretary Paulson to rise and “calls them to account and punishes them, and says that they are cursed oligarchs.”

But is it democracy that is becoming a bunch of drunken fools who have taken their freedom to regulate us and regulate these industries that need to be called out and punished? I would say yes, very much so.

That begs the question that no one will ever answer and no one will ever ask. Lucky for you, I will. Do we need a tyrant to kick down the door and tell Bush, Paulson, Pelosi, and others to get out of the way? Had Bush or Gore been a tyrant and seized power would we be in this situation today?

Of course, my answer is no. We do not need a tyrant but we do need a leader. We need someone who will stand up to the American people and stop playing games of politics and actually do what is right. We need someone who knows economics and believes in small government.

We must do it through the means that are necessary, which is without government. Will that lead us to ruin? Maybe, so. No, democracy has lasted forever and there is a reason for that. It has something to do with tyrants who take over for the good and turn. But it also has something to do with the people.

Back to the 2000 election, did the Supreme Court act as a bailout of our democracy? Had all the votes been counted, we would have had Bush still. But the Supreme Court intervened and we stayed peaceful, not that there was a threat of the opposite. It was just insuring the just in case moment. Of course, Gore is a lot more popular than Bush now a days.

It is just funny to think the American people have been burned by a dictator not so long ago, but yet we forget what small government was like and we have become much bigger than the government in which we broke away from. Democracy can be just as corrupt as a dictator.

~Marxsevelt

Now we have tax breaks for alternative energy with this bill. How does that make sense? That is like allowing the government to communize and remove private ownership for farmers, while giving tax breaks for toothpaste companies. The two have nothing to do with anything. If you wanted to add a tax break to this bill then you should add a tax break for those banks who buy up the bad debt.

Democrats should look at this and realize that they will always have a majority. They want socialism as long as they hand Republicans tax breaks then they will let it happen.

So you are probably thinking, what is wrong with tax break? I love most tax breaks just much as anyone else, but tax breaks are also a distortion to the markets. Tax breaks require applications and paperwork, which is just more paperwork. This is just more bureaucracy.

I expect the bill to pass in the house and they will all go back to their district and say what they said after the stimulus. “We really wanted to put in tax breaks.” The voter will then look at their Congressman or woman and say “Wow, you stood up for us and you got us tax breaks.”

Well Socialism will come with tax breaks…

As I was browsing the internet for some news, I found that I couldn’t escape the news of this bailout plan. First, we have a Republican President George W. Bush crowning Secretary Paulson economic Czar. Second, you are asking for $700 billion dollars for this new plan, making you the biggest socialist we have ever seen in executive power. FDR looks like Adam Smith right now. Third, we hear how your former archenemy John McCain support this act and would like to add more government to the mix. Yes, George W. Bush’s $700 billion dollar bailout plan is “more right wing” than John McCain’s rubber stamp with a little more bureaucracy. Meet the two wings of the party. We have the socialists and the socialists plus 1.

I am sure right now the Communist and Socialist parties are extremely upset. As not only have the Democrats stolen their platform since 1930ish but now the Republicans are doing it in the 2000′s. Republican Party, it is not all of your fault, as it is people like me who helped you guys get elected by believing in you. Believing that you were the “party of lesser evil.” That you were the party of “free market Capitalism.” That you were the party that slows government growth.

I used to claim that the Republican Party should get on the deregulation platform. Instead of changing the subject or talking about national security, when Democrats come up with socialist domestic issues your first reaction should have been deregulate. Oh, those were the golden days. Now I would have been happy with the “Republicans, we grow government – slower.” Instead, it is not “Republicans, we tell you that we won’t grow government but we have been beating Democrats at it for the past eight years.”

This brings me to the Republican Party Platform and back to my browsing the internet. I found this over at Reason’s blog:

“We do not support government bailouts of private institutions. Government interference in the markets exacerbates problems in the marketplace and causes the free market to take longer to correct itself.”

This is from the 2008 Republican Party Platform. Maybe it would be true that if the Republican Party still held these beliefs that I would vote for them. That day is long gone. When I think back on the times when Hoover was expanding the size of government after Cooledge kept the government relatively small but both were running under the Republican party ticket, What did the Republicans do then?

Do you split the party? Do you ignore it? If you ignore it, how much do you ignore? When FDR was growing the size of the government and he met almost no force from the Republicans, what do you do? What is a small government pro-market capitalist suppose to do? We aren’t there yet but in the Soviet Union they fled. Where would we go today? I love this country just as much as the next and I guess that is why I am writing this letter.

I can disagree with a Democrat on a billion issues, but I will never win with my own team using their tricks. Republican Party, you must get this through your head:

I will take a Democrat who says he is a Democrat, anyday over a Republican who is really a Democrat.

Your old friend,

~Marxsevelt

“A 22-year-old woman in the United States is publicly auctioning her virginity to pay for her college education, sparking a heated online debate about sex and morality.

“I don’t think auctioning my virginity will solve all my problems,” she told celebrity television show The Insider on Wednesday. “But it will create some financial stability. I’m ready for the controversy, I know it will come along. I’m ready to do this.”

“We live in a capitalist society. Why shouldn’t I be allowed to capitalize on my virginity?” she added.”

I do not see a problem with this. Let the young girl sell herself as a prostitute if she wants, but that isn’t even what she is doing. She is taking something rare and valuing it at a certain level. She obviously realizes that someone taking her virginity will value that as much or more than her losing it to someone she loves. She also must value her education over that too.

Economics can say a lot here. Who knows when she thought of this idea, but if it has been an ongoing project then she has had to possibly suffer without sex for maybe 6 years give or take. Most people lose their virginity much earlier, but this woman realizes that virgins are worth more than non-virgins. She is also 22 and it is very legal for her to sell herself for sex if she wants at the Bunny Ranch in Nevada.

The other idea is the fact that if she decides to have sex before she gets married, I wonder what the true chances of marrying that same person is. I am sure as you get older the chance increases, so it is possible she could meet someone tomorrow, have sex and marry them. Not likely 6 years ago.

The last fact that no one seems to be mentioning is the idea of fraud. The price difference between a non-virgin and virgin is probably going to be huge, but who says she is a virgin?  If you find out she isn’t, how do you prove it? The fraud can go both ways. The guy could try to trace her background and find an old boyfriend, who would like a cut of the money.

Some thoughts to chew on and the rest of this amazing article is here.

HT: to Anything and Everything

~Marxsevelt

“Under the terms of his employment contract, Daniel Mudd, the departing head of Fannie Mae, stands to collect $9.3 million in severance pay, retirement benefits and deferred compensation, provided his dismissal is deemed to be “without cause,” according to an analysis by the consulting firm James F. Reda & Associates. Mudd has already taken home $12.4 million in cash compensation and stock option gains since becoming chief executive in 2004, according to an analysis by Equilar, an executive pay research firm.

Richard Syron, the departing chief executive of Freddie Mac, could receive an exit package of at least $14.1 million, largely because of a clause added to his employment contract in mid-July as his company’s troubles deepened. He has taken home $17.1 million in pay and stock option gains since becoming chief executive in 2003.”

I guess some people were celebrating greatly with the move of the government socializing Fannie and Freddie. The taxpayers have to lose while the Executives leave. Now of course I do not think it is their fault entirely that the two are failing, but the government sure thinks so. If they truly think it is mismanagement from the market and those who were in charge, then why aren’t they penalizing them. Instead, they are rewarding them. This of course while the taxpayers pick up the bills.

~Marxsevelt

“SAINT PAUL, Minn. – The 2008 Republican National Convention today announced the themes and preliminary lineup of speakers for the program of events that will run Sept. 1-4. The convention’s overall theme, “Country First,” reflects John McCain’s remarkable record of leadership and service to America. Each day of proceedings will center on a touchstone theme that has defined John McCain’s life and will be central to his vision for leading our nation forward as president.”

What does it mean to put ‘Country First’? This means when the government wants you to do something, over what you would rather do, that you should do what the government says. Take for example this quote:

“All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state. ~ Benito Mussolini”

That means if you want to drive a Hummer or SUV and the “country” doesn’t want you to you must then change your ways. Same goes for taxes, marriage, and regulation. I prefer this quote:

“Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual).~ Ayn Rand”

So, while John McCain and whomever comes up with his slogans may prefer Mussolini over Rand, he will stand alone on that one. It may sound good for someone to say we are going to put the country first, but who’s country? My country would look drastically different than any other country. Just like Rand’s country would look different than Mussolini’s.

Let me do their slogans. It would go something like “More freedoms for Every American.”

~Marxsevelt

“But today, international adoptions are increasingly complex for Americans, a trend that is reducing the number of foreign children entering the United States and leading more prospective parents to look into adopting from U.S. foster care.

The face of adoption is being changed by a combination of factors, including more aggressive efforts worldwide to stop illegal child trafficking. As part of those efforts, the U.S. government is more closely scrutinizing requests for U.S. visas for foreign children.”

First, we restrict trade by putting tariffs and import quotas. Now we are restricting adoption of children. This I am sure is good intentions but I thought most child trafficking happens outside of the United States. I really wonder how much they actually catch. Just like anything else there is a market for adoptions and babies. In many cases there are perverse incentives, but out of all the adoptions brought to the U.S., how many are trafficking?

Should the government really be restricting adoptions as much as they do? I am sure in most cases those children are being put in a much better environment.

The rest is here.

~Marxsevelt

This from the Washington Post:

“On McCain’s Web site, visitors are invited to “Spread the Word” about the presumptive Republican nominee by sending campaign-supplied comments to blogs and Web sites under the visitor’s screen name. The site offers sample comments (“John McCain has a comprehensive economic plan . . .”) and a list of dozens of suggested destinations, conveniently broken down into “conservative,” “liberal,” “moderate” and “other” categories. Just cut and paste.”

I would think this would be very fake and not effective. You are not going to change my mind about John McCain by writing a comment on a website. It probably helps with name ID but we know who he is. It is possible that if you keep seeing the same thing over and over you will have a favorable opinion of it. At some point I am sure it becomes annoying too.

The rest of the article can be found here. The actual program can be found here. Notice that on the right they have suggest blogs for you to put the comments on there.

HT Reason Hit and Run blog.

~Marxsevelt

1. Government 71%
2. Natural Disasters 44%
3. Food-processing plants 29%
4. Grocery Stores 28%
5. Farmers 16%
6. Restaurants 11%

Of course most of the other answers other than natural disasters are hostile towards the market. People were allowed to select more than one thing. My question to the 3-6 answers is what happened now that made them able to rise the prices. Did the evil owners of those wake up one day and decide to rise prices? I don’t think so. They did forget to put in rising demand, which is probably part of the answer with government price supports.

~Marxsevelt