by Jessica Contreras
October 9, 2011
Bringing the End The Fed message to OccupyLA
By Jason Mahakian
October 8, 2011
No more than 15 people along with myself from the EndTheFed Group of Los Angeles held a Protest at the Federal Reserve Branch in Los Angeles On Saturday, October 8. I’m happy to report that there were two members of Oathkeepers with us as well. We held our picket signs there for about an hour and a half, under the watch of private security guards, no LAPD here. What I first noticed was that there was no signage on the building save an engraved brass door handle, obviously wanting to draw little attention to itself. On the sidewalk, the organizer with a bullhorn led the rest of us with raised voices proclaiming various facts pertaining to The Fed, receiving support from cars that honked as they passed by.
read more »
September 7, 2011
Obama Blinks
Lew Rockwell, Jr.
President Obama has pulled back on imposing new “air quality” regulations. The regulations would have hobbled many industries and created many spillover effects. The Republicans have estimated costs as high as $90 billion, but they are just saying that to provide a sound bite. They supported such things under Nixon and Bush.
There is no real way to know the costs of such egregious legislation, especially given that the highest costs of regulation are hidden. They consist of the jobs not created, the products that don’t come to market, the production that does not take place, the efficiencies not realized, the standards of living not raised. Indeed, it is worse than that; the more the government hobbles the economy, the poorer we become – and there is no real way to document a future we are not permitted even to see.
Do you disagree? Well, fine, but apparently none other than Obama does agree. He said: “I have continued to underscore the importance of reducing regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty, particularly as our economy continues to recover.”
This is a gigantic intellectual concession. If this is true of some regulations, what about the billion-plus other regulations? The results are the same any time you shackle free enterprise, in whatever way you do it. You cut off options for entrepreneurs. You reduce the value of capital by providing fewer outlets for its use. You divert productive energies from making things for society and forcing them into complying with regulatory bureaucracies. The costs are always enormous. In fact, we might look at socialism or fascism as nothing other than the extreme end of a highly regulated economy.
read more »
July 27, 2011
Ideas and the Culpability for Violence
by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
Lew Rockwell, Jr.
The violence perpetuated by Anders Behring Breivik in Norway unleashed the usual torrent of blaming anyone who might have influenced the murderer’s thought. He was first described as a right-wing Christian – a description designed to put a certain community on notice. As more evidence rolled in, he has been more accurately described as an anti-Islamic nationalist, but the tendency to pin this violence on any non-leftist is still there.
There were footnotes in his 1,500-page manifesto to many dozens of books and articles – including a few published by the Mises Institute. Looking at the balance of his citations, however, it’s clear that his main influence had nothing to do with libertarianism. His inspiration was a point of view reminiscent of American neoconservatism. He cited articles in this tradition – particularly on the fear and hate of Islam – far more often than any other.
So, does this violence discredit neoconservatism, as when then-President Clinton tried to blame libertarians and the “militia” movement for the Oklahoma bombing in 1995? The point of this game is to silence the opposition, shut down debate, and fundamentally discredit the body of ideas on which the violence can be blamed.
It’s pretty much been this way since the ancient world. Governments can perpetuate violence in war and against the civilian population every day, but when a private person does the same for political reasons, a struggle ensues to see which line of thinking will pay what price.
The truth is that every political point of view can be twisted into a rationale for violence. If you think that the rich should be expropriated, there are generally two ways to bring this about: you and your friends can steal from the rich directly – maybe killing some fat cats in the process – or you can lobby Congress to do it for you.
read more »
July 12, 2011
Ron Paul Will Not Run for Congress Again
by Lew Rockwell
Ron Paul, the amazing and principled politician, is not running for Congress again. It’s the end of an era, but the beginning of a new one. But why is Ron not running, after finally getting a little of what he is due with his monetary committee? He has been thinking about this for some time, and wants to concentrate on the presidential campaign and future and enhanced educational efforts that will blow your socks off. Also, he has had it–to name just a few items–with: twice weekly groping by the TSA (since he has metal knees and is selected for the full feel-up every time); dealing with the crooks and creeps in Congress, especially in the rotten Texas delegation; and the unfortunate new district the Republicans have given him. There are sad aspects to this, of course. He has been the greatest congressman in American history, by many leagues. But I predict that he will have even-more and even-more-lasting influence as he uses his moral authority for teaching freedom, peace, and Austrian economics outside of politics. More later.
UPDATE According to Politico, under a deliberately ugly photo of Ron, it is “All or Nothing” now for Ron. Of course, that implies that the state is all, and private life nothing.
July 6, 2011
Extortion, Private and Public: The Case of Chiquita Banana
Originally posted on Lew Rockwell.com
Lefties have protested against Chiquita Banana for so long that most activists probably forget why they are supposed to hate the company. The company does have a spotty history, especially when it was United Fruit. For decades after the turn of the 20th century, US military interventions in Latin America were inspired by the goal of protecting its investments in Cuba, Panama, Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, and Mexico. This is why these wars are called the Banana Wars, and why these countries have been variously dubbed Banana Republics (though the main purpose was always to raise taxes for the NY investment banks that held government bonds).
On the other hand, what these critics don’t often point out are the fantastic blessings that the company has brought to the region. It helped eradicate malaria, has dramatically raised living standards, and its interest in protecting its lands and trade relationships has actually served as a brake on socialistic tendencies toward the looting of private enterprise in the region. It has also been a victim of mass theft during revolutions, as happened after Castro’s.
More recently, the company has been in the news because of an unjust attack by the US Justice and State Departments. Following 9/11, the US government made a list of groups around the world that it considered purveyors of terrorism (a list that conspicuously excludes any cells within the world’s largest military-industrial complex). As a means of balancing out the many “Islamic fundamentalists” on the list, the US included known para-military groups in Latin America.
read more »
July 5, 2011
What Does "Class Action" Mean?
by Lew Rockwell
Originally posted on mises.org
The news of the Supreme Court decision on Walmart — declining to approve a massive lawsuit against an amazing company — was reported as if it amounted to some devastating blow to American life. Nonsense: the decision actually permits normalcy in economic development to proceed without a new round of destruction of wealth. Some lawyers might be sad, but it is great for the rest of us.
The lawsuit grouped the interests of 1.6 million women who had worked for 3,400 stores since 1998. One can only imagine the looting that would have commenced had the decision gone the other way. It would have been catastrophic. What the Supreme Court did was narrowly decline to wreck even more American labor markets and the gears of free enterprise. It is a small favor, but thank goodness for it.
The lawsuit that was turned back was called a “class-action lawsuit.” The word “class” is the English lexicon is usually used in two ways.
The first is the popular sense that refers to social standing. A person can be from the “working class.” A person can be part of the “middle class.” In American society, there is by tradition no such thing as an “upper class.” There might be a “leisure class” or an “upper middle class” or an “upper crust” but no “upper class” — and that probably stems from the charming myth that we abolished such a thing with the elimination of lords and dukes. (A derivative sense is more colloquial. We say that a person “has class,” which means that he or she acts and behaves in ways that are generally higher on the social strata than the norm. We might say something is “classy,” meaning pretty, beautiful, impressive, or suggestive of wealth and opulence.) This is not the sense in which the term “class” is used for these lawsuits.
read more »
June 12, 2011
Dr. Paul's Case for Gold
Foreword to the second edition of The Case for Gold (2011)
originally posted on LewRockwell.com
The Case for Gold - by Ron Paul
This country had the chance to avoid the disastrous meltdown of 2008 and following, the one that has led to the nationalization of industries, the creation of oceans of paper money, and the destruction of so many American dreams. The answer that might have been is the one you hold in your hands: the minority report of the US Gold Commission of 1982, written by Ron Paul and signed by Lewis E. Lehrman. It provides an outstanding history, wonderful theoretical analytics, and a proposal for the return of sound money, which is gold.
Alas, it was the minority report and therefore killed by political forces. Of course, the fix was in from the beginning. The commission only came to exist in the first place as payoff to certain “goldbugs” in the Republican Party in those years. Ronald Reagan was one of them. So his influence was part of the reason the Commission was created. But it wasn’t created to institute a gold standard. It was created to bury the idea once and for all.
Ron Paul wouldn’t let it happen. The result was this book, which remains a mighty case for sound money and the blessings that change would bring to this country. A gold currency would restore economic stability and growth. It would eliminate unemployment. It would force government to spend only what it can collect in taxes. It would rein in the welfare state and the warfare state. It would give the people control of money again. It would restore what we used to call freedom, which is a core of social and civic life that is impenetrable and inaccessible to government planners.
With a gold standard, the Fed could disappear. The banking industry would become an industry like any other, subject to the profit and loss test and given no guaranteed bailouts at taxpayer expense. The financial industry would be forced to surrender its love of socialism (for losses, not gains) and become honest again. We would all start living within our means and thriving off private wealth rather than depending on the public sector to save us.
Trade with other nations would benefit. Protectionist wars rooted in currency manipulation would cease. Policy options in Washington would be mercifully restricted to only what Washington could afford to do and afford to enforce. Vast swaths of the public sector as we know it would have to just pack up and go home. This would be the greatest blessing visited on this country in a century. But can you see why Washington isn’t interested? It has nothing to do with disagreements over economic theory. It is all about who has power in society. Paper money gives power to tyrants. Sound money – that is gold – gives power to the people and the free markets they control.
Lew Rockwell
So, yes, we should have listened to Ron in 1982. The thing is that he – wisely and bravely – never stopped talking about this issue. It turns out that this book, this minority report, is the work of a prophet. It tells the truth and shows the way. It should be our manifesto again. This timeless statement on behalf of economic truth can be our guide.
They didn’t listen then. But maybe they’ll listen now. We need monetary freedom more than anything else. The way digital markets are advancing, it might come about with or without Washington’s permission. As Ron has always known, paper money cannot last. Either it has to go, or the American dream has to go. They cannot forever live side by side.
June 10, 2011
Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. [send him mail], former editorial assistant to Ludwig von Mises and congressional aide to Ron Paul, is founder and chairman of the Mises Institute, executor for the estate of Murray N. Rothbard, and editor of LewRockwell.com. See his books.
Copyright © 2011 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
June 8, 2011
Ron Paul: I’m Running Against Keynes
Ron Paul in conversation with Lew Rockwell.
[audio:http://independentword.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/205_Paul.mp3|titles=Ron Paul]
Congressman Ron Paul
Forget the other cookie-cutter candidates. Ron Paul is challenging the economics of government power and dollar destruction, as exemplified by John Maynard Keynes. He wants to reverse Nixon’s dictat, that “we are all Keynesians now,” and make that “Austrians.” He also finds new support for his exposure of Fed abuses, and opposition to the Christian right theology of endless war.
Independent Word 
You must be logged in to post a comment.