who's your nanny?

My Brother at the Rex

Eat your heart out, Lee DeWyze. This is an iPhone video of my brother, Erik Bothwell, performing at the Rex Theater in Pittsburgh two weeks ago.

After years of playing in garage bands and scoring a handful of pretty decent gigs, Erik's decided to give a music career one last shot by going solo. I think it's his best bet, especially if he can keep turning out originals like this.

Stupid Bumper Stickers

I saw a bumper sticker today that read "Proud to be a union sheet metal worker."

I guess "Proud to force my fellow citizens to pay artificially higher prices for sheet metal" just didn't have the same ring.

This Is the Rand Paul Essay I Would Have Written...

had I not been so uninspired over the past few days. I immediately grew tired of the Rand Paul flap simply because of the absolute idiocy of liberal responses I read. Liberals treat racism as if it is the most evil motivation one can have. And any action motivated by dislike of race is criminal. If the action is a crime, then the punishment needs to be even more severe than if the crime were motivate by the usual hate. So while murder is bad, to murder someone because he was black is an abomination. That is worthy of life plus 20 years, whereas to murder someone in the course of a robbery is just life. Unless you robbed the person because he was black and then killed him. That's the death penalty.Of course, such racism is only racism if it oppresses or offends minorities and women; white men can be mistreated because they are white men for eternity.

Via Wilton Alston, I discovered this essay by Bretigne on The Rand Paul Kerfuffle. She makes two points that really struck a chord with me. First she writes:

Am I the only one who thinks it’s crazy that a person can advocate mass murder, and pre-emptive war and can still be a part of civilized discourse, but use the “N” word, and they’re ruined?  The charge of “racism” has become the lowest kind of smear one can make against one’s opponents, and if substantiated, can end a career.  Meanwhile, the cheerleaders for the wars, and the war crimes, continue to be welcome in polite society.  Am I the ONLY one who thinks there is something wrong with that?  That we as a culture seem to have elevated name calling to a higher offense than advocating murder and wars of aggression?

The idea that liberals are pro-peace or antiwar (an idea propagated by Republicans to argue that liberals cannot protect the country) is ridiculous. Liberals are some of the most violent people you will ever meet. They may not personally want to hurt or kill you, but they will advocate that the State smash you to a pulp if you stand in the way of their agenda. Remember when liberals were against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan when Bush was in office? Now that Obama is in office, where are these antiwar liberals now? With few exceptions, they have kept their mouths shut because they really never cared that brown people in foreign nations were being killed by US forces. They were upset that Bush, a Republican, was in charge of this mass murder. Had Al Gore won the election, liberals would have said nothing if Gore decided to "liberate" the Afghan and Iraqi people.

Liberals covet power and they do not care at all that people are dying as a result of the use of that power. As long as they are in control, they continue to believe that their actions are just and righteous. And with Obama in office, they smell blood in the water. They hope that they will see the nation converted into the socialist/communist paradise they all dream about. And if brown people in foreign countries (and this country thanks to the War on Drugs) have to die to bring paradise on earth, so be it. You can't make omelettes without breaking eggs.

The second point that I found illuminating is:

And this, I think, gets more to the heart of why most people really don’t get what Rand Paul was saying about the Civil Rights Act:  Most Americans really don’t take any kind of principled position on private property rights or indeed on the use of force.  The prevailing ethic -- if one can call it that -- seems to be:  If people are not behaving the way I think they should be, then force is justified to get them to do so.  If a problem -- any problem -- is identified, force is not only justified, but is usually the first solution most Americans will embrace.

She is preaching the libertarian gospel here. Libertarians are the only ones who take a principled position on property rights and such a position is completely alien to most people. Most people essentially adhere to a "I believe in property rights, but..." position. What follows the "but" is any random value that people assert should trump property rights. Racism, equality, the environment, gay rights, etc. There is never a philosophically consistent reason given; the reason is whatever the people think should trump property rights at the time. But libertarians only make an exception when a property owner uses his property to threaten physical violence against another person; this consistency drives most people up the wall because the majority of people believe that there are always other exceptions. People may disagree on what those exceptions are, but they know that there are always more exceptions than the use of aggression by the property owner. And the fact that libertarians do not make any more exceptions genuinely confuses the masses.

I encourage you to read her entire essay. It really is a good read.

More Comic Relief from Living in DC

Trevor, you are only scratching the surface of the joys of living in DC. Just this week the DC Council passed a tax on soda and other sweet drinks; proposed, but rejected tax on the highest-income earners in the city; voted to strip funds from the streetcars that are to run on H street (the same street you had the pleasure of driving on after the Cook-Off); and has proposed a commuter tax on city workers who live outside the District. The City has a $550 million budget gap and is desperate for revenue from any source. And the DC government cannot simply print up the money unlike the Federal Government.

But this is DC and math is not one of the Council's strong points. For instance, regarding the streetcar funds, the Washington Post reports:

The D.C. Council Wednesday approved stripping funds designated to bring streetcar service back to the city in an effort to close a $550 million budget gap.

The vote effectively delays the launch of the streetcars. The council still must vote on the change when it votes on the full budget later today.

The council voted to take $49 million for street car system and distribute it among other projects. (Emphasis added)

Unless "other projects" means "all DC creditors", I don't see how cutting funds from one project and distributing those funds to other projects will close a budget gap. But this is an election year and Vincent Gray, who is running for mayor against incumbent Adrian Fenty and voted to cut streetcar funds on Wednesday, reversed his vote on Thursday. He suddenly found $50 million after "a backlash from at least one member of Congress and hundreds of residents who jammed government phone lines, community e-mail groups and Gray's Web site". Don't you just love politics during election season?

And the DC Council has been trying to tax commuters to the city for years. Since most of these workers cannot vote in DC elections, the Council figures that they are easy targets. The problem is that such a measure cannot pass without the approval of Congress, and Maryland and Virginia representatives always oppose this proposal. Of course, city workers do not pay taxes; they receive their income from those who actually produce goods and services on the free market. Essentially Maryland and Virginia are fighting with the District over the distribution of stolen funds. If the commuter tax were passed, the District government's share of plunder would rise at the expense of Maryland's and Virginia's who tax these city workers residing in those States. Clearly, Maryland and Virginia cannot allow this to happen without a fight. I guess the District will have to settle on the five redlight cameras and five speed cameras between New York Avenue and the on-ramp to 395-South (a route most travelers using when driving through the city) to collect from unsuspecting commuters.

What's Wrong with Healthcare in the US?

In two words-The State.

Here is an excellent article by Vijay Boyapati about how the Federal Government has ruined the health care system in the US. Feel free to send this along to any economically illiterate liberal friends.

District of Clowns

I competed in the DC101 Chili Cook-Off this past Saturday. Like most localities the DC government imparts obligatory taxes "fees" for the right to use taxpayers' its property -- in this case, RFK Stadium grounds -- so in addition to the private cookoff fees (levied by the National Kidney Foundation and which actually are used to pay staff for this specific event), all cooks were required to pay a $25 tent fee if they wanted to erect a 10x10 canopy.

There are a litany of other rules and regs chili cooks were expected to follow in order to participate, but this one really took the cake. About mid-way through the afternoon, the NKF's cookoff coordinator visited all cooks to inform them that, by order of the fire marshal, propane stoves could not be located directly beneath tent canopies. But in order to enter the cookoff in the first place, all cooks were required to provide certificates of flame retardance for their specific tents!

Just another brilliant use of taxpayer resources.

Detroit Police Mistake 7-Year-Old Girl for Family Dog

Well, that title's not exactly true. After a Detroit SWAT team invaded a private residence over the weekend and executed 7-year-old Aiyana Jones, government officials claimed it was an accident; we know man's best friend is an intentional casualty of these violent raids.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least to learn that this paramilitary unit came in with guns blazin' and caught this poor child in the line of fire. But since I can't support such a claim with evidence at the moment, I'll give police the benefit of the doubt. However, whether this girl was shot intentionally or not, at minimum the officer holding the gun is guilty of manslaughter because he trespassed on private property and initiated violence against an innocent victim. Period.

Of course, because the state's laws always (incorrectly) trump moral law, we all know that the offending officer will simply receive a paid vacation in the event of any investigation while this family buries a child whose life was robbed by government thugs.

Detroit Police Assistant Chief Ralph Godbee sophomorically referred to Jones's killing as "a tragedy of unspeakable magnitude," as if our grief can be assuaged because our criminal assailants pay lip service to the obvious while doing absolutely nothing to prevent the tragedies they inflict. If these goons cared at all, they would immediately cease operations that needlessly put innocent lives at risk.

But they won't because we allow them to act with impunity while we, ironically, pay the price for their immoral behavior. In the eyes of the state and its civilian enablers, Aiyana Jones was merely "collateral damage"; the "cost of doing business." Ho hum. Move along. Nothing to see here.

Is the War on Drugs a Failure?

Recently the AP reported that US Government's War on Drugs has not met any of its goals. Essentially the US Federal Government has spent trillions on this war and has not achieved any of its stated purposes:

After 40 years, the United States' war on drugs has cost $1 trillion and hundreds of thousands of lives, and for what? Drug use is rampant and violence even more brutal and widespread.

Even U.S. drug czar Gil Kerlikowske concedes the strategy hasn't worked.

"In the grand scheme, it has not been successful," Kerlikowske told The Associated Press. "Forty years later, the concern about drugs and drug problems is, if anything, magnified, intensified."

If one believes that the true purpose of the War on Drugs is to actually reduce drug use, then one might agree with the assessment that "the strategy hasn't worked." However, those of us cynics who read a lot of Robert Higgs' essays think otherwise.

In his essay The Myth of "Failed" Policies, Higgs writes

Anyone who listens to the news hears a lot about failed policies. Conservative Republicans in Congress say they are seeking to overturn the failed policies enacted by liberal Democrats. Although the Democrats defend their deeds, they admit that certain policies may have failed and should be reviewed. 

But politicians who talk about failed policies are just blowing smoke. Government policies succeed in doing exactly what they are supposed to do: channeling resources bilked from the general public to politically organized and influential interest groups.

What's a Dollar Worth?

If you're an avid reader of this blog or any other radical libertarian outlet, you know that the short answer to the question posed by the title above is "not much."

The price of gold has surged to $1,230 per ounce, up almost $150 per ounce since my wife and I made our first purchase of gold (and silver) about a month ago. At the time of our purchase we were buying fairly high at about $1,150 per ounce, but because our primary intent is to hedge against inflation, I'm not really following the price fluctuations every day like a daily trader would. However, that hasn't stopped my broker from calling twice within the past week to let me know that the price is going up and up and, most likely, up again.

I don't know enough about the gold market and investing in general to make even an educated guess as to how high the price of gold will climb, but I do know that as the global economy continues to falter, where fiat currencies become less and less valuable, commodities like gold, silver, and oil will only become more valuable.

If I had hundreds of thousands invested in gold currently, you can bet your lunch money that I'd be on the phone right now with my broker trying to pick the best price at which to sell so I could make a few bucks or add even more to my collection once the current spike in buying settles down a bit. But since my goal is to protect my wealth over the long term, my outlook is that you buy gold at any price that's comfortable to you at the moment and just sit on it, continually adding to your stash of precious metals whenever you can.

While prices undoubtedly fluctuate over the short term, there can be little doubt that the price of gold will only trend upward until governments stop debasing their fiat currencies by issuing easy credit, printing paper money, and engaging in limitless deficit spending. Gold and silver would be a good investment even in a stable economy; it's downright crucial in an unstable one.

At the time the Fed was established in 1913, the price of gold was less than $21 per ounce. Today, as we've just seen, it's trading at $1,230. That means that the Fed has devalued the U.S. dollar roughly 98 percent since its advent. I'm no mathematician, but it sounds to me like the dollar only needs to lose another 2 percent of its value before it's literally worthless. A gold coin still buys whatever it bought 70 years ago; it's the dollar amount that changes (and in our history, increases) over time.

Here's some perspective. My wife and I purchased 20 ounces of gold a month ago. That's 20 pure gold coins, and yes, they're beautiful. When I picked them up at the post office, they came in a tiny little box. Picture two Kodak film containers filled with 10 coins each. Those two small containers cost us -- are you ready for this? -- $25,000. Twenty-five thousand dollars for two little containers of gold coins.

In 1913 they would've cost us about 420 bucks.

You might say I'm crazy to spend that kind of money on coins. I'd reply by telling you you're crazy not to.

No Wonder the Police Don't Want Us to Have Guns

From Lou:

I don't know if you have written about this incident yet, but Columbia, MO Swat raided a house for large amounts of weed only to shoot the family dog in front of the couple's 7 year old kid and to only muster up 2 joints in their massive raid.

This is a few months old but well worth your time.

Note: Completely appropriate foul language.

Buffalo in the Rear View

In case you're looking for reasons why Rochester, N.Y., has been gaining on Buffalo in population lately, some of the economic decisions on display in Buffalo mayor Byron Brown's housing initiative provide a good illustration.

If high taxes and bleak job prospects haven't yet convinced Buffalonians to flee this once-prosperous city, there's nevertheless a good chance many of them are shaking their heads at how seemingly insistent the mayor is on driving Buffalo further into irrelevance.

So what's Brown's big plan for prosperity? Using taxpayer money to tear down "dilapitated houses" and replace them with taxpayer-subsidized houses the mayor himself admits are not worth the cost to build. Better yet, Brown claims this means the city is "moving in the right direction with housing."

No, you really can't make up this stuff.

The state's job is to destroy, and despite incessantly propagandizing the public to the contrary, all a state can do is destroy and devalue everything it touches. In order to raise its first nickel, the government must first steal from innocent producers, thereby destroying real wealth by at least the very amount it ever intends to "create" in the first place.

However, one need not be an economist to understand that homes built with subsidized funds are going to cost more than those contracted privately. After all, if you know someone has to buy something from you, you're going to charge him more than the person who has the choice to buy either from you or your competitor.

Mayor Brown's proposition is a fool's errand and one that is destined to further impoverish a city I still love, but from which I long ago voluntarily expatriated largely due to these types of wealth-destoying activities. But if it makes my friends in Buffalo feel any better, life's no better here in the People's Republik of Maryland, either.