Category: Popular

Inconvenient Cash?

currency, money, binary, electronic, cash, illustrattion

Everywhere I turn these days, I am hearing something about the push to get rid of cash.

Yes, cash. Greenbacks. Federal Reserve Notes.

You might think that getting rid of cash is a no-brainer. Cash makes up only 11 percent of the money supply. Most of the money stock is already those 1s and 0s in bank computers, on debit cards, and the like. So why not go all the way?

It is the “logical next step,” after all!

But not every “next step” is advisable. When walking towards a cliff, that next step might be a doozy. And when you are dealing with government and the banks, jumping off a cliff proves an apt metaphor.

Don’t go lemming on me, man.

You can probably guess the usual arguments for getting rid of cash. Convenience, for one. It sure would be convenient for government and central bankers if they could just seize control of money “magically” in the banks’ computers.

Somehow, I am not persuaded. Neither is economist Pierre Lemieux, who provides us with a helpful survey of anti-cash arguments. And when the experts argue that it would be more convenient for consumers, incredulity is the best response. “To argue against the usefulness of cash is to deny the revealed preferences of many individuals,” Lemieux insists. “The fact that cash has not disappeared even in non-criminal hands means that it is convenient for many individuals.”

He expands the thought with an important truth: “Economic efficiency is defined in terms of what individuals want.”

And the purpose of governments is to follow individuals, not corral them, manipulate them … for bureaucratic convenience.

Let’s keep cash.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Originally (cc) photo by FamZoo Staff on Flickr

Tags binary, cash, currency, economics, electronic, money

general freedom ideological culture nannyism national politics & policies Popular too much government U.S. Constitution

The Venezuela Chaos

government, bathtub, Venezuela, illustration

I have friends who call themselves anarchists. Their theory? Government is always merely an open conspiracy of some to live at the expense of others.

Republicanism, on the other hand, proposes that if we limit government, we can hone it down to the level where there is no conspiracy, and everything the government does can plausibly help everybody.

Not just a few insiders.

Socialism is the opposite notion. Socialists seek to grow government so far that it “naturally” serves everybody, not only the few. It’s all about “equality,” you see.

Here’s what we know for sure: socialism, when really tried, is so awful that it makes anarchy-as-chaos sound good.

The latest socialist horror is Venezuela, which is getting worse every day. Now hospitals place newborns in cardboard boxes. There are no other supplies.

But that’s not all. The special program for feeding everybody? It’s now mainly for feeding just those close to the government — precisely as my anarchist friends say all government is:

Six months after the creation of the Local Committees of Supply and Production (Clap) that is designed to “distribute food directly to the people,” the government has decided to change its approach by threatening those using the program.

The Venezuelan government announced that it will suspend delivery of food packages to those who criticize its policies.

Are socialist out to prove anarchists right?

I bet most of my readers still put some hope in limiting government to serve all. Venezuelan socialism demonstrates how badly the opposite idea is, showing us that serving everybody by total government just decays into the folks allied closely with government warring against everybody else … who starve in plain sight.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Questions Answered:

What is the difference between a republic and a socialist state?

What do anarchists think of government?

What happens when government tries to do everything for everybody?

The Next Question:

How do we convince well-meaning socialists that total government cannot work for the benefit of everybody? (Since the examples of the USSR, Communist China, and Venezuela haven’t worked so far.)

Printable PDF

Tags anarchy, big government, poverty, socialism, Venezuela

Accountability ideological culture media and media people moral hazard national politics & policies political challengers Popular

Smash the Duopoly

presidential, debates, duopoly, two party, illustration

When Donald Trump called our country’s electoral process a “rigged system,” he was not wrong. The system is a legally secured duopoly.

I’ve discussed a number of the elements of this system previously. But one I may not have explored enough is the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD).

The League of Women Voters sponsored the first televised presidential debates in 1952, and from 1976 till 1988 ran a “tight ship,” as How Things Work puts it. After the League refused to cooperate with the bullying major parties, the CPD was established by former R and D bigwigs aiming to fully accommodate the major party candidates.

And no one else.

The CPD calls itself “non-partisan,” but that’s a misnomer. It is a bipartisan commission, as everyone who knows its history knows. The commission raised the bar on minor party candidates to polling 15 percent in a number of polls.

Recently, we’ve been hearing that the commission is preparing a third place on stage, for Libertarian candidate Gov. Gary Johnson. But he still hasn’t quite yet hit the prescribed percentage, though he has met the most important qualification: he is the only minor party candidate likely to be on all state ballots.

And now there’s a kicker. According to Brian Doherty, historian extraordinaire of Reason, “The Socially Liberal and Fiscally Conservative PAC (Solifico) [yesterday] morning sent a letter to Janet Brown, executive director of the [CPD], threatening to send the IRS after them over their policy of not allowing all legitimate candidates for president in their debates.”

The case looks solid.

And could secure for Johnson a podium at the debates.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Tags 2016 Presidential race, debate, debates, Gov Gary Johnson, libertarian, Presidential campaign 2016

folly general freedom ideological culture nannyism national politics & policies Popular

Extremist Against Charity

Bernie Sanders, charity, welfare, government, against charity

Vermont’s favorite son, Senator Bernie Sanders, has a long history of saying strange things, comments that cast a shadow on his current spin that the socialism he favors is a “democratic” one.

He really is (or has been) quite extreme, extremist.

How extreme? He is against charity. You know, private aid provided to alleviate private suffering.

Steve Hayward at PowerLine has unearthed a New York Times piece from way back in Bernie’s mayoral days, about something he said addressing a United Way crowd:

“I don’t believe in charities,” said Mayor Sanders, bringing a shocked silence to a packed hotel banquet room. The Mayor, who is a Socialist, went on to question the “fundamental concepts on which charities are based” and contended that government, rather than charity organizations, should take over responsibility for social programs.

How telling is that?

What many of us have long suspected about anyone calling himself a socialist is that, in his heart of hearts, he really is against any degree of freedom.

The free society alternative, on the other hand, is the common sense policy: we all do the good that makes sense to us, each act or operation judged by our differing metrics, investing our time and money as we see fit.

This allows for innovation and speedy adaptation to changing needs.

Bernie, on the other hand, figures everything has to be centrally organized and taxpayer-funded. That’s not merely a good definition of socialism, it’s creeping totalitarianism … and not the least bit charitable.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Common Sense Needs Your Help!

Also, please consider showing your appreciation by dropping something in our tip jar (this link will take you to the Citizens in Charge donation page… and your contribution will go to the support of the Common Sense website). Maintaining this site takes time and money.

Your help in spreading the message of common sense and liberty is very much appreciated!

Photo credit: Marco at Flickr

Tags 2016 Presidential race, Bernie Sanders, charity, Presidential campaign 2016

folly general freedom ideological culture meme moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies Popular

Bernie’s Slippery Definition of Democratic Socialism

Post author By CS Admin
Post date February 23, 2016
No Comments on Bernie’s Slippery Definition of Democratic Socialism

Bernie Sanders has always given a comically slippery definition of democratic socialism. For years he simply called himself a socialist, but given the dismal and bloody history of that word, he’s modified his label (and has repeatedly modified its definition).

Bernie:

Socialism has failed in the past because it’s been hijacked by ruthless dictators… but the socialism I want is “democratic,” so the people would be in control and not a dictator!

Skeptic:

But Bernie… every socialist regime has defined itself as a “people’s movement.” Even today, socialist dictators come to power through democratic means… Venezuela is a modern example.

Bernie:

But I mean countries like Denmark and Sweden! They’ve figured out how to make it work! That’s the kind of socialism I want!

Skeptic:

But Bernie… After several decades of economic decline, the Scandinavian countries have found it necessary to liberalize their economies… not make them more socialistic. Even the Prime Minister of Denmark says that his country is not socialist. He insists that Denmark is a market economy.

Bernie:

Well I don’t really mean Scandinavia. I mean something like FDR’s New Deal. Don’t you like Social Security and Medicare? Don’t you like government service?

Skeptic:

But Bernie, Social Security and Medicare are insolvent and teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. Every government service I can think of is plagued with inefficiency and corruption. Our welfare system has a decades long history of trapping people in poverty. Why would you want more of that?

Bernie:

Well, What I really mean is Scandinavian democratic socialism! They’ve figured out how to make it all work!

Skeptic:

But Bernie…
and round and round and round…

Of course, his core socialist beliefs have remained pretty consistent: capitalism must be opposed, wealth must be redistributed and the state must have more power to enforce these goals.

But he can’t simply say that out loud… because genuine socialism has some very serious problems…

A healthy democracy depends on the spreading of good ideas. If you found this article useful, please share it with friends by clicking on any of the social media icons below.

Common Sense Needs Your Help!

Merry-go-round photo by cbransto on Flickr

Tags 2016 Presidential race, Presidential campaign 2016, socialism

general freedom ideological culture meme moral hazard national politics & policies Popular responsibility too much government

9 Dangers of “Democratic Socialism”

Post author By CS Admin
Post date February 16, 2016
10 Comments on 9 Dangers of “Democratic Socialism”

dangers, socialism, socialist, 9, democratic socialism, meme, illustration, Jim Gill

First… some definitions:

Socialism advocates the public ownership and control of business and industry in service of a more equal distribution of wealth.

“Democratic Socialist” Bernie Sanders places emphasis on redistribution and downplays the public ownership and control part of the system.

However… Bernie seems never to have met a government monopoly he didn’t love, or a private enterprise he didn’t distrust or despise. It’s the state for Bernie, and Bernie for the state.

What are the 9 dangers?

It normalizes envy.

It rationalizes theft.

It idealizes state power.

It penalizes accomplishment.

It rewards indolence.

It preaches obedience to the state.

It encourages dependence on the state by treating citizens as children.

It dismisses the protection of individual rights with a vague appeal to the “collective good” or “public good.”

It has repeatedly led to economic collapse, oppression, poverty and starvation.

So how have Scandinavian democratic socialists managed to avoid these dangers?

Quote from the current Prime Minister of Denmark:

“I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy.”
—Speech, Harvard Institute of Politics

From “Scandinavian Unexceptionalism” (from the Institute of Economic Affairs):

Today the Nordic economies are again growing, following a return to broadly free-market policies that served them well before policies changed during the 1960s and 1970s.

The countries are changing in the face of serious long-term problems that have developed over the last 30 years.

Finland, Sweden and Denmark have…introduced far-reaching market reforms. These changes include greater openness to trade, clear reductions in the tax burden, private provision of welfare services, the introduction of personal retirement accounts and, in Denmark, even a shift towards a liberal labour market.

—Scandinavian Unexceptionalism (highly recommended!)

And the moral hazards?

The development of Scandinavian welfare states has led to a deterioration in social capital.

Nordic societies have for hundreds of years benefited from a strong Lutheran work ethic, a strong sense of individual responsibility and high levels of trust and civic participation.

In the early stages of their transition to “democratic socialism”, safety nets did exist, but few used them. Over time, an increasing share of the population became dependent on government transfers. The welfare states moved from offering services to the broad public to transferring benefits to those who did not work.

The situation that exists in Nordic societies today is one in which ethics relating to work and responsibility are not strongly encouraged by the economic systems. Individuals with low skills and education have limited gains from working. This is particularly true of parents of large families, which gain extra support if on welfare.

It is true that welfare systems have reduced poverty. However, especially in the second generation, they have also created a form of social poverty of the same type that is apparent in the countries from which many of the admirers of the Scandinavian systems come. Detailed research clearly shows that welfare systems have formed a culture of dependency which is passed on from parents to children.

All of these problems are widely acknowledged by policy makers in the Nordic states. They are generally ignored by American enthusiasts for “democratic socialism.”

MUCH MORE HERE on the moral and economic capital that preceded the welfare state, and its gradual disintegration over time…

Do you believe that socialism is a good idea that has simply been corrupted by ruthless dictators? Consider the story of the Great Cultural Revolution… a mass movement of Chinese youth dedicated to eradicating capitalism and advancing socialism. Its bloody history tells us quite a lot about the logic of this flawed political philosophy… “Socialism’s Idealistic Youth”

Useful References

Scandinavian Unexceptionalism (Institute of Economic Affairs)
This paper is especially valuable because it was written by someone who actually favors a large welfare state. His willingness to concede the problems inherent in such a state are refreshingly honest… and useful for anyone interested in the issues.

What Can the United States Learn from the Nordic Model? (CATO Institute)

Myth: The Scandinavian countries are proof socialism works (Being Classically Liberal)

The Myth of the Scandinavian Model

Economic Freedom of the World: 2013 Annual Report

International government spending (Wikipedia)

Index of Economic Freedom (Heritage Foundation)

A healthy democracy depends on the spreading of good ideas. If you found this article useful, please share it with friends by clicking on any of the social media icons below.