History is freedom

Brandon Smith notes the collectivist hatred for heritage and history:

A distaste or hatred of heritage is very common at the onset of any collectivist restructuring. These restructurings usually target principles of individual liberty and self governance while masquerading as a fight against oppression or corruption. The old principles are either presented as too outdated and insufficient to deal with the new problems of a culture, or, they are presented as the actual SOURCE of the problems of that culture. In either case, the elites wielding the collectivist machine inevitably call for a purge of all bygone ideals.

In Communist China, Mao instituted the Cultural Revolution, which encouraged the mindlessly mesmerized collectivists in the Chinese populace to destroy everything which represented the past. Artwork, buildings, historical artifacts, books; even teachers and proponents of any brand of pre-communist heritage were targeted.

In Fascist Germany, the Nazis destroyed countless books and manuscripts, rewrote German history, censored and removed thousands of artworks, instituting state designated artforms that depicted the collectivist vision of the new society.

In Russia, the Communists focused intently not only on liquidating manuscripts extolling the methods of different eras, but also the people who wrote them. Under Lenin and Stalin, the goal was to annihilate the memory of the world before, even if it meant annihilating the masses along with it.

A complete reformation of educational infrastructure came next. The children of the collectivist age had to be indoctrinated as if there had never been another way of doing things.

These purges, as numerous examples have shown, are only temporary. The great conundrum for the elites has not only been the obstacle of memory, but the obstacle of the soul; that inherent quality in human beings that compels us to pursue freedom, balance, and truth, regardless of the constraints of our environment. The documents and remnants of heritage that oligarchs seek to destroy are ultimately only expressions of our inborn consciences. Deep down in each person, no matter what they have been conditioned to believe, there is a well-spring of vital ideas that conflict with the mechanizations of collectivism. Individualism finds a way to surface, and so, the central rulers must start over once again, looking for an insurmountable method of control.

I’d never associated my love of history with my intellectual affinity for human liberty. I’d merely regarded history as a useful tool for potentially avoiding past mistakes. But it is true, the totalitarian thirst for eliminating and creatively rewriting history does tend to lend some credence to the idea that the knowledge of history is important, perhaps even integral to understanding and upholding human freedom. The goal of the totalitarian is always stasis, which involves not only destroying the future and turning it into a facsimile of the present, but the past as well.

Mailvox: the best defense

In which the self-appointed champion of free trade doctrine, Unger, demonstrates that he literally does not know what he is defending:

Free trade does not require the free movement of labor, dumbass. If I buy a hamburger, I don’t have to move in with the cook, or vice versa. Maybe it works differently on Planet Stupid, where the Superintelligent natives can’t so much as buy a stick of gum without inviting comparisons to U-haul-driving lesbians; here on Earth, it thankfully ain’t so.

Free trade most certainly does require the free movement of labor. This is self-evident because it does so by its very definition. An immigration limitation is, quite obviously, a restraint on trade every bit as restrictive as a tariff or a control on capital. Unger here demonstrates that he knows absolutely nothing about the doctrine he is so dogmatically and so ineptly defending. I don’t mind being called childish names by such an interlocutor, indeed, I would be more concerned if anyone so intellectually hapless claimed to follow my reasoning, let alone agree with it.

Contra his illogical and incorrect insistence that free trade does not require open immigration, I cite Ludwig von Mises in Liberalism: “Under a system of completely free trade, capital and labor would be employed wherever conditions are most favorable for production…. Capital and labor tend to move from areas where conditions are less favorable for production to those in which they are more favorable. But the migration of capital and labor presupposes not only complete freedom of trade, but also the complete absence of obstacles to their movement from one country to another.”

Once more, we see that the defenders of free trade aren’t merely anti-American, they are either ignorant of their own doctrine or astonishingly intellectually dishonest. And it is beyond irony to see a free trader present an appeal to how things work on Earth in the real world.

The total safety of vaccines

Of course, nothing like this unfortunate little incident of gene-swapping viruses could ever possibly occur with human vaccines. Because scientists have performed all sorts of scientific experimentsstatistical reviews and so they can assure you that no vaccine has ever been scientifically proven to harm anyone ever.

Three vaccines used to prevent respiratory disease in chickens have swapped genes, producing two lethal new strains that have killed tens of thousands of fowl across two states in Australia, scientists reported on Friday. The creation of the deadly new variant was only possible because the vaccines contained live viruses, even though they were weakened forms, said Joanne Devlin, lead author of the paper published in the journal Science….

The viruses emerged in 2008, a year after Australia started using a European vaccine along with two very similar Australian vaccines to fight acute respiratory disease in poultry. The illness causes coughing, sneezing and breathing difficulties in birds, normally killing 5 percent of them. The two new strains, however, were far more harmful, and since they were created have killed up to 17 percent of chicken flocks across Victoria and New South Wales, the two main chicken rearing states in Australia.

Of course, if these Australian scientists utilized the system presently used by the U.S. vaccine reporting system, their reports would show that twelve chickens had died for reasons that were inexplicable, but definitely had absolutely nothing to do with the vaccines they received the previous day.

Upending economics

Steve Keen’s Debunking Economics is less a critique than slashing out the legs upon which economics has rested for centuries. One of the pillars he topples has a direct connection to the deflation dichotomy, as he attempts to explain to Mish why the Federal Reserve’s big increase in bank reserves has not led to more lending:

That “increase reserves to increase lending” argument is so hard to shake, but reserves can’t be lent from simply from a double-entry bookkeeping point of view.

The way that accountants keep track of the “assets equals liabilities plus equity” rule is to record an increase in assets as a positive and an increase in liabilities as a negative (your liabilities rise, so a negative gets bigger). Reserves are an asset, as are loans, and shown as a positive. Deposits–which are created by a loan–are a liability and shown as a negative

So to lend to a customer, a bank has to show a negative on that customer’s accounts. This can be matched by a positive on the loans entry–because the loan has increased in size. No problem.

But if banks were to lend from reserves, they would need to record a minus there–reserves have fallen. And on the liabilities side, they want to … also show a negative. Whoops! No can do.

The end result of this logic is that reserves are there for settlement of accounts between banks, and for the government’s interface with the private banking sector, but not for lending from.

Banks themselves may (if they are allowed–I simply don’t know the rules here) swap those assets for other forms of assets that are income-yielding, but they are not able to lend from them.

As Keen points out in his book, it’s not merely an accounting perspective that suggests the conventional economic understanding of the relationship between deposits and loans in a fractional reserve system cannot be correct, but the empirical observation of banker’s activities as well. Loans not only don’t depend upon deposits, they usually precede them.

This also helps explain why the artificially low interest rates maintained by the Bank of Japan and the Federal Reserve, have not, as the monetarists expected, produced increased borrowing.

That could create a problem

Sure, the macroeconomic statistics are fiction, but it would be rather hard to make decisions based on them look convincing when they don’t even exist:

Istat, the Italian statistics agency, says its resources are strained to breaking point amid the country’s tough austerity drive to repair its public finances. From January 2013, the agency – the equivalent of the UK’s own Office for National Statistics – warned it will stop putting out any official data, if the government goes ahead with planned budget cuts.

“Spending cuts are putting Istat at risk. From January onwards we will not issue any statistics,” Enrico Giovannini, head of the agency, told newspaper La Repubblica.

Zen question of the day: If an economy doesn’t have any statistics reported, does economic activity still occur?

SS grows up

It would appear that the SF/F genre is gradually becoming more aware of the existence of Stupefying Stories and the writers it publishes: “Return to Earth,” by Ryan M. Jones, first published in STUPEFYING STORIES 1.1 (October 2011), is this week’s Main Fiction feature on StarShipSofa, the Hugo Award-winning SF podcast.

Congratulations to the OC and everyone else involved.

Mailvox: rethinking Paterno

Adognameop asks about the Vox, What do you make of the recent FBI report regarding Penn State? It seems to reveal what everybody already knew; that Paterno was an accomplice to child rape. Does it affect your opinion of Paterno?

First, I would note that Paterno’s actions did not, in any way, make him “an accomplice to child rape”. An an accomplice is a person who is present at the scene of the crime, actively participates in its commission, and has the same degree of guilt as the person he or she is assisting, is subject to prosecution for the same crime, and faces the same criminal penalties. None of this applies to Paterno.

So, let’s take a look at what Paterno actually did, as opposed to the rhetorical exaggerations of the preening moralists who are presently in competition to see who can feign the most outrage:

Louis J. Freeh, the former federal judge and director of the F.B.I. who spent the last seven months examining the Sandusky scandal at Penn State, issued a damning conclusion Thursday: The most senior officials at Penn State had shown a “total and consistent disregard” for the welfare of children, had worked together to actively conceal Mr. Sandusky’s assaults, and had done so for one central reason: fear of bad publicity. That publicity, Mr. Freeh said Thursday, would have hurt the nationally ranked football program, Mr. Paterno’s reputation as a coach of high principles, the Penn State “brand” and the university’s ability to raise money as one of the most respected public institutions in the country….

Mr. Freeh’s investigation makes clear it was Mr. Paterno, long regarded as the single most powerful official at the university, who persuaded the university president and others not to report Mr. Sandusky to the authorities in 2001 after he had violently assaulted another boy in the football showers.

What is new here is that whereas before we knew that Paterno had reported Sandusky’s actions to the correct authorities, now we know that he was the one primarily responsible for matters not going any further. Whereas before it appeared that his only failing was the excusable moral one of doing no more than his legally defined duty, now we know that he was the main instigator of the coverup. This is a very different thing, and I note that it is actually considerably worse than anything Paterno’s most vehement critics accused him of doing previously.

And yes, it does change my opinion to a certain extent. In light of the latest revelations, I think it would be appropriate for the Penn State football program to receive the death sentence for three or four years from the NCAA. That would send the most unmistakable message to everyone, and would be the one punishment that Paterno would have felt most deeply. How Penn State chooses to respond is really no concern of mine, but as a general rule, I don’t favor whitewashing history. If I were the responsible individual at Penn State, I would not remove Paterno’s name from the various buildings he funded and tear down his statue, but rather seek to use him as an example to teach about the dangers that hubris poses to even the most upstanding and successful.

All men are fallen. I still think Paterno was, for the most part, a good man who made a very foolish and counterproductive attempt to protect his reputation and his football program. Was it wrong? Certainly. Did it have evil consequences? Most likely. Does it merit a harsh punishment? Definitely. But was it indicative of an evil or malevolent intent? I don’t believe so, and to conflate the moral failings of a Paterno with the overt and predatory evil of a Sandusky is a fundamental mistake. It is important to remember that this is not simply a Joe Paterno scandal, but rather a Penn State scandal.

The Freeh report is somewhat ironic in that Louis Freeh would certainly know a coverup when he sees one, given his involvement in similar whitewashes of Ruby Ridge and Waco.

Free trade is anti-property rights

In the comments, PG constructed an interesting and effective logical argument against free trade, which I have organized thusly:

1. Free traders insist upon the existence of property rights and the sovereign exercise of those rights as axiomatic. From this foundation, they argue that all actions concerning with whom one will trade, regardless of their location or nation, are protected by those property rights and cannot be morally infringed.

2. If a group of people happen to share the rights to a property in an ownership group, they must decide together on how those rights are exercised. No single individual can sell the property or permit its use by others without the agreement of the other rights holders. The ownership group collectively has the right to decide who and what are permitted to enter their property. It is not an infringement of any one owner’s property right if the greater part of the ownership group does not wish to sell the property or to permit entry to certain parties or items.

3. A nation is a group of people who share a common property that is delineated by the national borders. This group of people must therefore decide in some consensus manner how the rights to that property are exercised. They can therefore decide who and what are permitted to enter the national property in precisely the same manner that a house-owning group decide who and what are permitted to enter their house. It is not an infringement of any one individual’s property right if the greater part of the nation does not wish to sell the land possessed by the nation or permit entry to certain parties or items.

4. To deny a nation the property right to enact tariffs or refuse permission for goods, capital, or labor to cross its borders, is tantamount to either denying a) property rights or b) the nation’s existence.

5. However, denying the existence of nations is not only empirically false, it creates a logical contradiction for the free trader because it requires denying the individual property-owner the right to form collective property-ownership groups from which nations are made. The free trade position depends upon the idea that individuals possess property rights, but groups of more than one individual cannot.

6. Therefore, free trade doctrine requires the denial of the very property rights upon which it is founded. As PG correctly concludes, “their whole argument is an outright logical contradiction”.

As evidence in support of PG’s logical construction, I offer the following statements concerning the existence of nations from two champions of the dogma, Mr. Gary North and our own Unger.

North: “Defenders of tariffs present themselves as defenders of the nation, when in fact the nation, from the point of view of economics, is not a collective entity. The nation, from an economic standpoint, is simply a convenient name that we give to people inside invisible judicial lines known as national borders.”

Unger: “I do not consider myself an ‘American’, except as a verbal convenience, or have any care at all for ‘America’.”

Now, it can certainly be pointed out that the mere existence of a nation does not mean that all of its members are voluntary members of it and it cannot be denied that the legitimate property rights of the nation can be abused or ignored just as they are in the case of individual property rights. But PG’s logic suffices to demonstrate that the property rights argument upon which many free traders heavily rely is far from the conclusive one that they believe it to be.

A future ambassador is born

One of Instapundit’s readers asks a revealing question:

Reader Dave Tulka writes: “Our daughter Caroline is headed off to college next month as an International Relations major at North Georgia. I doubt I am the only dad shopping laptop backpacks for a college-bound kid. Any preferences from the enlightened Instapundit readership?” Any suggestions?

The answer, obviously, is to not send her there in the first place. I mean, I can’t think of anywhere better to learn about International Relations than North Georgia college, can you? IR is among the easiest, most worthless majors besides art history, sociology, and Black/Womyn’s Studies. Seriously, what is wrong with parents that they are willing to permit their children to waste four to five years spending tens of thousands of dollars for what is less valuable than a pack of toilet paper?

Degrees are not education and they are not all created equal. If you’re going to Harvard Law or getting an engineering degree at CalTech, great. Do that, it will serve you well. But if you’re intending to acquire a degree in a lightweight humanities subject at a university that is not one of the top 100 nationwide, you are probably wasting your time as it is very unlikely that you are going to get any material benefit from it.

The return of the VPFL

This year, we’re not going to leave it until the last minute. So, if you’d like to throw your hat in the ring, please do so. There are only four spots available, as the fixed spots go to last year’s winner, Nate, the White Buffalo, the VP-AFL champion, and me, plus Ender has asked to play for the first time, so I will randomly select from the volunteers with first-timers given precedence.

Whoever is the VP-AFL champion should let me know in the comments who would be the three keepers from their roster and I will attempt to pair them up with an open team from the VPFL with one or more of those players.