Resolved:
“Marxism/Socialism, Is A
Sociopathic Philosophy Conceived In Gross Error And Ignorance, Culminating In
Economic Chaos, Enslavement, Terror, And Mass Murder.”
For the affirmative:
George Reisman, the Capitalist Professor.
For the
negative: Bernie Sanders?, AOC?, any Communist, Socialist, or “Progressive”
anywhere.
The affirmative
position is available in written form in both Kindle and paperback versions
at https://amzn.to/2N44uTu
Nutsy
Nancy is trying to impose a speech code on the House of Representatives. The
code would bar words that indicate gender, such as father and mother, daughter
and son, husband and wife, and replace them with gender neutral terms such as parent,
child, spouse, etc.
Republicans
can stop this nonsense by standing up one after another, hopefully all 211 of
them, and announcing that they speak standard English not 1984 Newspeak, and
so will go on using such words as mother and father…husband and wife, etc.
They
should remind Nutsy Nancy that the First Amendment to the US Constitution
prohibits Congress from making any law that abridges the freedom of speech,
which this speech code clearly attempts to do.
And if it
is not a law, because of its being prohibited by the Constitution, then it is
without force and thus can be ignored, and will be ignored, at least by all House
Republicans.
The Republican speakers should insist that their remarks be taken down and reprinted verbatim
in all relevant Congressional documents, such as The Congressional Record.
If
Republicans do this, and thus role back the anti-free speech movement in
Congress, then perhaps others will be inspired to do the same thing on college
campuses.
The
frequently heard demand for a 9/11 type commission to deal with a mob’s
vandalism at the Capitol on January 6 implies that these two events were
commensurate. Such a claim is laughably absurd.
Almost
3,000 innocent people were killed on 9/11, most in two collapsing skyscrapers
rammed by airplanes loaded with highly flammable jet fuel.
On 1/6, ONE innocent person was killed, in what appears to have been a scuffle between
some rioters and a Capitol police officer, who died. One of the rioters was
shot and killed by the Capitol police. Three people died from medical
emergencies, such as a heart attack or stroke.
As for property
damage, on 1/6 it was not what were the world’s two tallest skyscrapers at the time,
plus part of the Pentagon, plus three commercial jet passenger planes, but some
broken glass.
Nevertheless,
on the basis of this absurd equivocation between 6/1 and 9/11, a cabal of radical
Leftists in the House of Representatives rammed through the impeachment of the
President of the United States. The House was turned into a lynch mob.
Those who claim that 6/1 was similar to 9/11 are unfit to disseminate the news or hold public office. They are intellectually and morally despicable. They deserve the profound contempt of all mankind.
To make America great again, we must make America FREE again. Yes, MAKE AMERICA FREE AGAIN! As the very first steps, stop the lockdowns and stop the cancel culture.
As the first step in stopping the cancel culture, publish the
names of the corporate cowards that are threatening Congressmen and Senators
(and talk-show hosts too) for having exercised their constitutional right to
question the results of the 2020 election.
In the last few days, a combination of some of the country’s largest businesses (Apple, Amazon, Facebook, Google, and Twitter) have joined together in an effort to put another firm (Parler) out of business.
How does this not come under the heading of a “conspiracy
in restraint of trade,” to quote the language of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act,
and is therefore illegal?
Last Wednesday looks like America’s “Reichstag Fire.” The suppression of ideas is rampant. Representatives of the incoming regime are laying plans for the punishment of its adversaries. How long before there are concentration camps?
In
calling for the impeachment of a President who has only days left in office, Nancy
Pelosi, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, reveals a streak of
viciousness and venom that makes it seem like she must spew hatred just in the
act of exhaling.
We are
living in dangerous times. A leading goal of the new regime is the reduction of
CO2 emissions, ultimately to net zero, the effect of which will be a return to
the life of the Dark Ages and massive depopulation across the world.
We are
living in the midst of a revolution that Ayn Rand called “The Anti-Industrial
Revolution.” Saving the Industrial Revolution and its foundation of capitalism
and individual freedom must be our foremost political goal in the years ahead.
Does anyone know of a century by century (i.e.,2100, 2200…3000) widely endorsed projection of just how much the global mean temperature and sea level will have risen? The claims I hear all seem to imply just that the numbers are huge and are coming very quickly
What is
our basic problem with respect to nature? Is nature largely hostile, making it necessary
for us to take action with respect to it? Or is nature fundamentally benign,
becoming hostile only as the result of our actions?
To learn
more, read my “The Toxicity of Environmentalism,” 99¢ at https://amzn.to/2XkCIcf
A change in the code of conduct of the House of Representatives seeks to replace words that indicate gender with words that are “gender neutral.” For example, “mother” and “father” are to be replaced with the word “parent”; “son” and “daughter,” with the word “child.”
The authors
of the code change seem to have overlooked the fact that most first names indicate
a particular sex. For example, “Frank” and “Joe” are names for males; while “Barbara”
and “Susan” are names for females.
Perhaps
the next Congressional code change will replace all such traditional first
names with names of sexless objects, such as “desk,” ”lamp“ “carpet,” and “chair.”
In
response to such brainless, sex-hating nonsense, I say, “Vive la différence.”
Transparency
“Transparency”
is one of the most popular buzzwords of our time. So I say, how about some transparency
for social media “fact checkers,” such as what are their names and educational
qualifications?
Stolen Elections
Were
there other stolen elections in 2020? It’s widely believed that at least some
significant percentage of the presidential vote was fraudulently diverted to
Biden.
But no
one is asking about the vote in House and Senate races. Is it possible that where
votes were created for Biden, they were also created down ticket, enabling the Democrats
to retain the House?
Is it possible that the Republicans won the House if cheating is factored out? They would have needed only six more seats.
The paperback version of my The Government Against the Economy is now for sale on Amazon for $14.95; 223 pages. This book was strongly endorsed by both Hazlitt and Hayek and is included as chapters 6-8 of Capitalism. Go to https://amzn.to/3o4bRgi to order.
More good
news: My Jefferson School pamphlet “Platonic Competition,” which originally appeared
in Ayn Rand’s “The Objectivist,” is now for sale on Amazon. Price 99¢. Buy it
at http://amzn.to/2Lhy6kd
A
critique of core concepts of contemporary "microeconomics," above
all, the concept of "pure and perfect competition" and equality of
price with marginal cost as the standard for judging competition. It is the
antidote to much of the error in contemporary "microeconomic" theory.
The benefits of Industrial Civilization, i.e., the use of man-made power, specifically fossil fuels and atomic power, are so great that even if global warming and rising sea levels were in fact its by-products, it would deserve the total, enthusiastic support of everyone.
If global
warming and rising sea levels are coming, we should adapt to them, not try to
fight them by means of government mandated climate manipulation, which can kill
billions and reduce everyone left to the poverty and misery of our Dark Age
ancestors.
Let us
not perpetuate and enormously magnify today’s already massive economic
destruction by substituting the goal of fighting climate change for the goal of
fighting the Covid-19 virus.
Don’t
listen to lunatics who seek to conscript the human race as expendable means in
their wars on phenomena of nature, leaving to suffer and die countless numbers
of those about whom they are supposed to be concerned.
Any job
on which anyone’s livelihood depends is essential. It is essential to that person
and his family. Without it, they may not be able to buy food or pay rent.
This is
not the view of Gov. Newsom and the other petty tyrants now running amuck in
our country and impoverishing and virtually imprisoning tens of millions of
innocent people.
They
believe that to be “essential,” one’s work must be essential to others. To
them, only “others” matter, not individuals in and of themselves. On this basis,
without a second thought, they issue edicts upon edicts and impose suffering on
millions.
If
capitalists did not exist, profits would equal 100% of sales revenue and an
infinite percentage of zero capital invested. For proof, see my CAPITALISM: A
TREATISE ON ECONOMICS, available in hardcover, 2-volume paperback, and Kindle
editions at https://amzn.to/3kd4y39
Contrary
to Adam Smith and Karl Marx, capitalists do not create the phenomenon of
profit, which exists prior to their existence, but rather the phenomenon of PRODUCTIVE
EXPENDITURE (i.e., expenditure for the purpose of making subsequent sales).
Productive
expenditure consists of wage payments and expenditure for capital goods, both
of which show up as costs of production that must be deducted from sales
revenues and as capital invested in business assets.
The more
economically capitalistic the economic system, i.e., the more the buying for
the sake of selling relative to sales, the lower is profit both as a percentage
of sales and as a percentage of capital invested, while the higher are wages.
Capitalists
as a class do not create profits but wages. They increase wages both relative
to sales revenues and profits and absolutely in terms of wage earners’ standard
of living.
Again, for proof, read my CAPITALISM: A TREATISE ON ECONOMICS, available in hardcover, 2-volume paperback, and Kindle editions at https://amzn.to/3kd4y39
The economic
system of a capitalist society is a system of division-of-labor. In this
system, each individual devotes his labor to the production of goods and
services that are consumed by others, while what he consumes is produced by
others.
This represents
voluntary social cooperation of the most intensive and extensive kind
imaginable—a cooperation of hundreds of millions, indeed, of billions of people
all across the world in serving one another’s needs and wants.
Economic
competition is nothing other than the process of organizing this social
cooperation. It determines which individuals produce which goods, by what
methods, and to what extent.
For a
complete elaboration of the nature and effects of economic competition, see my
CAPITALISM: A TREATISE ON ECONOMICS, available in hardcover, 2-volume paperback,
and Kindle editions at https://amzn.to/3kd4y39
Having
succeeded with 100s of law suits to change state election laws and thereby make
it easier to fix the outcome, Biden’s camp was so confident in the fix, that it
concluded that all it needed to do was keep him alive until election day.
Hence
virtually no campaigning by Biden, thereby avoiding the risk of putting his
problem of age on display.
Expect Biden to last beyond inauguration day. But sometime thereafter, perhaps within two years or less, don’t be surprised if Biden is succeeded by Harris.
Can anyone provide “authoritative” projections of the
rise in sea level as of 2100, 2200, …, 3000 and of the number of square miles
of land century by century that would allegedly be lost to the rising sea and/or
to rising temperatures on land?
Can anyone provide reliable calculations of the
number of lives that would be lost as the direct or indirect result of each 10%
reduction in the production of power dependent on fossil fuels or atomic energy?
Please do not give a vague reference, such as “see the reports of the IPCC.” What’s needed is specific references to specific pages in specific documents and best of all the assemblage of the data, fully referenced, in a simple table.
As I see
our world morphing more and more into Orwell's world of 1984, with a growing inversion of truth and falsehood, I think the time has come to apply to it the
language of “1984.”
Thus, at
least from time to time, we should refer to the media as branches of “The
Ministry of Truth” and to President Trump as “Emmanuel Goldstein,” the arch-villain
enemy of the [deep] state as depicted in 1984.
Indeed, Trump
has been the victim of so many “Two-Minute Hates” that they blend into one intense, unending hatred 24/7/365.
And let
us not forget “The Ministry of Love,” which AOC and other haters are attempting
to forge in their efforts to ruin the lives of Trump supporters.
A
statement from the Ministry of Truth claiming the honesty and fairness of the election
appears at https://nyti.ms/38D5dIV. Be sure to read it if you’re ready to
believe that the dead can vote and that preventing Republican observers from observing
is fair and honest.
Some people have objected to my tweet-thread/blogpost of Nov. 6 in the belief that it supports illegal action and a violation of private property rights.
Actually, it does not, nor did I intend
it to advocate illegal action. The blog's title and the question it asks is,
“What If the ‘Right’ Behaved a Bit Like the ‘Left’?” It does not say that the
“Right” actually should behave that way.
Speaking out or protesting against the
lies and distortions of the media is justified. Exposing their complicity
with government corruption is justified. But violating their property rights is
not.
That could only be the case under a
condition of armed resistance to the government, assuming the media were acting
as government agents. Since we are not at the point of armed resistance, we are
not at a point where disobeying the laws is justified.
Moreover, even if such disobedience were justified,
given the Left’s near-total control over the media, such action would almost
certainly backfire, for it would be portrayed not as a response to outrages but
as unprovoked aggression.
As long as we
still have the ability to speak and write freely, our best course of action
against the left-wing media is to counter them with a free-market alternative.
Some of these
alternatives do exist. For example, Parler is becoming an alternative to
Twitter. Please see my November 1 tweet-thread/blogpost for an elaboration of this
free-market strategy.
Imagine that the “Right” behaved a bit like the “Left.” Not that it would smash store windows or loot businesses, but just express itself in strong, justified protest.
What would it be doing right now, based on its belief that the election was being stolen from it, not only by the illegal manufacture of massive numbers of ballots for Biden, but also in good part because of a deliberate news blackout about the alleged corruption of Biden?
Would it not perhaps temporarily occupy and trash the offices of such publications as the NY Times and Washington Post, and the offices of such outfits as CNN, MSNBC, and Twitter and Facebook, who did everything possible to keep that news from their members?
What about the offices of corrupt mayors in jurisdictions where the vote manufacturing has taken place?
Would such militant protest be helpful or harmful to the cause of freedom? Would it be an exercise in futility or, worse, self-destruction, or would it be an action similar in character to the Boston Tea Party?
Twitter, Google, Facebook, and others are frequently guilty of leftwing bias in their treatment of comments, internet searches, and publication of content in general, for which behavior they are frequently denounced as guilty of “censorship.”
Actually,
while private individuals and companies can do intellectually detestable things,
they cannot commit censorship. Censorship is possible only when a writer or speaker
has the agreement of the owner of a publishing venue to present his ideas.
If he has
that agreement and is stopped from presenting his ideas by the government, or
by private individuals acting with the sanction of the government, such as disrupters
whom the police refuse to arrest preventing him from being heard, then there is
censorship.
To make the
same point in different words, if the detestable New York Times refuses of publish
me, or even acknowledge my existence, that is not censorship. Censorship exists
if they were willing to publish me but were stopped by the government or a government-sanctioned
gang.
The way
to deal with Twitter et al. is by means of one or more counter websites that are
willing to publish what Twitter et al. hide. This would both deprive them of any
ability to block content and also seriously tarnish their reputations if they
did not change their behavior.
There are
many concrete problems that would need to be worked out in launching such a website.
But here’s a possible name and a slogan for one such site: “Can’t find what you’re
looking for in Google? Try ‘Second Search.’ We feature what Google hides.”
The problems
in starting such a website are numerous and large. But they do not include
having to compete across the board with the leftist sites. The area of
competition is only where the leftist sites are guilty of intellectual
dishonesty.
