The Contrast Between Liberty and Tyranny

An elegant contrast between liberty and tyranny was created by Frederick Bastiat In his 1850 pamphlet titled, "The Law"; the principles highlighted within remain timeless -- a must read for any serious student and lover of liberty.

"The harmlessness of the mission performed by law and lawful defense is self-evident; the usefulness is obvious; and the legitimacy cannot be disputed.

"As a friend of mine once remarked, this negative concept of law is so true that the statement, the purpose of the law is to cause justice to reign, is not a rigorously accurate statement. It ought to be stated that the purpose of the law is to prevent injustice from reigning. In fact, it is injustice, instead of justice, that has an existence of its own. Justice is achieved only when injustice is absent.

"But when the law, by means of its necessary agent, force, imposes upon men a regulation of labor, a method or a subject of education, a religious faith or creed -- then the law is no longer negative; it acts positively upon people. It substitutes the will of the legislator for their own wills; the initiative of the legislator for their own initiatives. When this happens, the people no longer need to discuss, to compare, to plan ahead; the law does all this for them. Intelligence becomes a useless prop for the people; they cease to be men; they lose their personality, their liberty, their property.

"Try to imagine a regulation of labor imposed by force that is not a violation of liberty; a transfer of wealth imposed by force that is not a violation of property. If you cannot reconcile these contradictions, then you must conclude that the law cannot organize labor and industry without organizing injustice." -- Frederick Bastiat (http://constitution.org/law/bastiat.htm)

Have You Ever Asked the Federal Government WHY? I Have.

Dear Federal Government,

By what standard and by what right am I forced to do certain things?  I pay into Social Security (SS), which is NOT being saved for me; it is being spent faster that it can be collected.  Arbitrary strangers, not including the administrative middlemen each taking their cut, will be the beneficiary of that money.  I also pay into welfare, which has the same story.  Then there is a percentage of my income, which is being taxed to fund certain thing that I do not benefit from, while others do.

WHY should I pay for any of those things; the only reason I could come up with is because I’m forced to.  If I wasn’t forced to, then I’d find a better place to invest my money.  If I can secure a retirement, which would be better than any government could provide, then WHY should I participate?  Even if I’m wrong and I cannot do better for myself, isn’t it my choice regardless?  By what right is my choice stolen from me?

If there is no (good) reason for me to participate in any of these things, then should it stop?  The government doesn’t need my money in this regard to function; it functioned just fine without direct tax on its citizens for nearly a century.   The government functioned just fine without SS or any other welfare program too.

If Obamacare is wrong, then WHY is forcing everyone to participate in SS -- or any welfare program for that matter -- not wrong too?  By what standard and what right is this abortion of individual rights allowed to continue?  What catastrophe occurred in the past that allowed our rights to be sold so short, and WHY am I forced to bear the burden brought on by past generations?  I do not need and will never use any welfare program, and their continuation is putting a strain on my life. 

Unless my understanding is wrong, there is no proper answer for WHY to any of my questions; therefore, give up your “Saintly Quest” and revert back to protecting my rights instead of violating them for the benefit of arbitrary strangers.  I have no problem paying you for that -- it is your proper role, after all.

To put it as simply as I can, this is my life and I want it back -- every aspect of it – and that is not a request.  My life and any part of it was never yours to take without my consent.

Sincerely,

m0

PS I’m still waiting for a reply.

End Fractional-Reserve Banking: Part II

The origination of the idea:

Where does the idea of fractional-reserve banking come from?  The short answer is goldsmiths implemented the idea to depart from full-reserve banking.  Back when gold and silver coins were the primary means of currency, goldsmiths kept deposits of gold in their safe for a small fee.  In return the depositor would receive a receipt for the exact amount of their deposits.  After a while, the receipts grew in popularity and were circulated just as much as the physical metals were themselves -- after all, they were as good as gold.  The deposits in the goldsmith’s safe were collecting dust and the smith realized that very few people came back to collect their deposits because they were using their receipts instead.  The goldsmith would then lend out the deposited gold at interest while keeping some in reserve just in case someone returned for it.  The depositors didn’t mind too much because they received their gold when requested (more or less) and because instead or paying for the storage fee, they would receive interest for their deposits; thus, the birth of the fractional-reserve banking process.

Money To Be Made With Little Risk:

Who is making the money?  In short, the bankers are.  They are earning interest on money that is not theirs.  Getting back to our previous example, let’s say for the sake of argument that the bank makes 8% interest for money on loan and pays 3% interest for deposits.  Given our example, there is $9000 loaned out and $10,000 in deposits—or $9000 loaned out, and $9000 + $1000 in deposits.  To simplify, that means the bank is making 5% on $9000 (8% on $9000 — 3% on $9000) and paying 3% $1000.  $9000 is $1000 times 9; so to simplify even further, that means the bank is making 45% (5% times 9) on $1000 and paying 3% on $1000.  And to go the rest of the way, the bank is earning (when all is said and done) 42% (45% — 3%) on that original $1000, which was not originally theirs.  There is a ton of money to be made off of money that doesn’t belong to you.  Is this process sustainable?

The Sustainability Of This Contradiction:

Continuing with our example, one can see that eventually the bank will own at least $1000 on record—only about two iterations of interest payments is 86% of $1000.  There is still $9,000 on record for loans and $10,000 for deposits.  Ok let’s assume the bank makes $1000 and withdraws it out of the system (the most extreme scenario) and puts it into an off shore hedge fund leaving everyone else to pay back $9000 in loans with zero money available.  This will create an infinite demand for money and no means to quench it.  Or in the case of a bank run instead, where everyone pulls out at the same time leaving those last in line with lint in their pockets.  The only result of either scenario is deflation (in this case by 10 times), leading to a depression.

Ok, this obviously cannot be sustained given my little example, but what about on the scale of an entire country (or the world)?  Macroeconomic effects are made of microeconomic events; therefore, if something cannot work at the micro level, then how can it possibly work at the macro level?  The answer is it can’t.  The part cannot contradict the whole.  The best you can hope for is to patch it up the best you can temporarily, and they do, until the system ultimately fails—like in 1929 or any end to any bubble.

The Morality of Profit

Is earning a profit moral?  Watch the below video, listen to the argument and judge for yourself.

AtlasNetwork.org/morality

Argument Fallacies

I'm not sure where these fallacies were derived from because I received them from a leftist whom I was debating.  He was trying to demonstrate how rational he was.  Of course the rational demonstration wasn't actually a demonstration at all -- he simply dropped his source which explained logical fallacies (bellow), and that was suppose to convince me that he was rational.  I doubt he had any level of understanding that would allow him to make use of such a valuable list, because for the remainder of the argument, I used his own list against his argument and thanked him continuously for his reference.  I'm sure his "use" of the material was not much different than any iteration from a parrot -- the ability to mimic sounds without actually understanding what one is saying. 

Anyway, it's a great tool to demonstrate the utter failure of leftist arguments on any rational standard; the double edge to this though, is that it can also show errors in your own thinking, which is a good thing.

---

The taxonomy of material fallacies is based on that of Aristotle's Organon (Sophistici elenchi). This taxonomy is as follows:

1.  Fallacy of Accident or Sweeping Generalization

• Fallacy of Accident or Sweeping Generalization: a generalization that disregards exceptions
• Example Argument: Cutting people is a crime. Surgeons cut people. Therefore, surgeons are criminals.
• Problem: Cutting people is only sometimes a crime.
• Example Argument: It is illegal for a stranger to enter someone's home uninvited. Firefighters enter people's homes uninvited, therefore firefighters are breaking the law.
• Problem: The exception does not break nor define the rule; a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid (where an accountable exception is ignored).

2.  Converse Fallacy of Accident or Hasty Generalization

• Converse Fallacy of Accident or Hasty Generalization: argues from a special case to a general rule
• Example Argument: Every person I've met speaks English, so it must be true that all people speak English.
• Problem: Those one has met are a subset of the entire set. One cannot have met all people.
• Also called reverse accident, destroying the exception, a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter

3.  Irrelevant Conclusion

• Irrelevant Conclusion: diverts attention away from a fact in dispute rather than address it directly.
• Example Argument: Billy believes that war is justifiable, therefore it must be justifiable.
• Problem: Billy can be wrong. (In particular this is an appeal to authority.)
• Special cases:
• purely personal considerations (argumentum ad hominem),
• popular sentiment (argumentum ad populum--appeal to the majority; appeal to loyalty.),
• fear (argumentum ad baculum),
• conventional propriety (argumentum ad verecundiam--appeal to authority)
• to arouse pity for getting one's conclusion accepted (argumentum ad misericordiam)
• proving the proposition under dispute without any certain proof (argumentum ad ignorantiam)
• Also called Ignoratio Elenchi, a "red herring"

4.  Affirming the Consequent

• Affirming the Consequent: draws a conclusion from premises that do not support that conclusion by assuming Q implies P on the basis that P implies Q
• Example Argument: If people run barefoot, then their feet hurt. Billy's feet hurt. Therefore, Billy ran barefoot.
• Problem: Other things, such as tight sandals, can result in sore feet.
• Example Argument: If it rains, the ground gets wet. The ground is wet, therefore it rained.
• Problem: There are other ways by which the ground could get wet (e.g. dew).
• Denying the antecedent: draws a conclusion from premises that do not support that conclusion by assuming Not P implies Not Q on the basis that P implies Q
• Example Argument: If it is raining outside, it must be cloudy. It is not raining outside. Therefore, it is not cloudy.
• Problem: There does not have to be rain in order for it to be cloudy.

5.  Begging the question

• Begging the question: demonstrates a conclusion by means of premises that assume that conclusion.
• Example Argument: Billy always tells the truth, I know this because he told me so.
• Problem: Billy may be lying.
• Also called Petitio Principii, Circulus in Probando, arguing in a circle, assuming the answer. Begging the question does not preclude the possibility that the statement in question is correct, but is insufficient proof in and of itself.

6.  Fallacy of False Cause

• Fallacy of False Cause or Non Sequitur: incorrectly assumes one thing is the cause of another. Non Sequitur is Latin for "It does not follow."
• Example Argument: Taxes fund necessary services such as police, courts, and roads; this demonstrates the necessity of taxation.
• Problem: The fact that taxes currently fund certain services does not prove that taxation is the only means, or the best means, of funding those services. Although, in all fairness, it is a deductive fallacy to claim that the logical possibility of something (funding public services without taxes) implies its practicality, probability or even existence.
• Special cases
• post hoc ergo propter hoc: believing that temporal succession implies a causal relation.
• Example Argument: After Billy was vaccinated he developed autism, therefore the vaccine caused his autism.
• Problem: This does not provide any evidence that the vaccine was the cause. The characteristics of autism may generally become noticeable at the age just following the typical age children receive vaccinations.
• cum hoc ergo propter hoc: believing that correlation implies a causal relation.
• Example Argument: More cows die in India in the summer months. More ice cream is consumed in summer months. Therefore, the consumption of ice cream in the summer months is killing Indian cows.
• Problem: It is hotter in the summer, resulting in both the death of cows and the consumption of ice cream.
• Also called causation versus correlation.

7.  Fallacy of many questions

• Fallacy of many questions or loaded question: groups more than one question in the form of a single question
• Example Argument: Is it true that you no longer beat your wife?
• Problem: A yes or no answer will still be an admission of guilt to beating your wife at some point.
• Also called Plurium Interrogationum and other terms

8.  Straw man

• Straw man: A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.
• Example Person A claims: Sunny days are good.
• Argument Person B: If all days were sunny, we'd never have rain, and without rain, we'd have famine and death. Therefore, you are wrong.
• Problem: B has falsely framed A's claim to imply that A says that only sunny days are good, and has argued against that assertion instead of the assertion A has made.

9.  Verbal fallacies

• Verbal fallacies are those in which a conclusion is obtained by improper or ambiguous use of words. They are generally classified as follows.

10.  Equivocation

• Equivocation consists in employing the same word in two or more senses, e.g. in a syllogism, the middle term being used in one sense in the major and another in the minor premise, so that in fact there are four not three terms

• Example Argument: All heavy things have a great mass; this is heavy fog; therefore this fog has a great mass.
• Problem: Heavy describes more than just weight. In the case of fog, it means that the fog is nearly opaque, not that it has a great mass.

11.  Connotation fallacies

• Connotation fallacies occur when a dysphemistic word is substituted for the speaker's actual quote and used to discredit the argument. It is a form of attribution fallacy.

12.  Argument by innuendo

• Argument by innuendo involves implicitly suggesting a conclusion without stating it outright. For example, a job reference that says a former employee "was never caught taking money from the cash box" implies that the employee was a thief, even though it does not make (or justify) a direct negative statement.

13.  Amphiboly

• Amphiboly is the result of ambiguity of grammatical structure

• Example: The position of the adverb "only" in a sentence starting with "He only said that" results in a sentence in which it is uncertain as to which of the other three words the speaker is intending to modify with the adverb.

14.  Fallacy of Composition

• Fallacy of Composition "From Each to All". Arguing from some property of constituent parts, to the conclusion that the composite item has that property. This can be acceptable (i.e., not a fallacy) with certain arguments such as spatial arguments (e.g. "all the parts of the car are in the garage, therefore the car is in the garage")

• Example Argument: All the band members (constituent parts) are highly skilled, therefore the band (composite item) is highly skilled. 
• Problem: The band members may be skilled musicians but lack the ability to function properly as a group.

15.  Division

• Division, the converse of the preceding, arguing from a property of the whole, to each constituent part

• Example Argument: "The university (the whole) is 700 years old, therefore, all the staff (each part) are 700 years old". 
• Problem: Each and every person currently on staff is younger than 700 years. The university continues to exist even when, one by one, each and every person on the original staff leaves and is replaced by a younger person. See Theseus's Ship paradox. 
• Example Argument: "This cereal is part of a nutritious breakfast therefore the cereal is nutritious."
• Problem: Simply because the breakfast taken as a whole is nutritious does not necessarily mean that each part of that breakfast is nutritious.

16.  Proof by verbosity

• Proof by verbosity, sometimes colloquially referred to as argumentum verbosium - a rhetorical technique that tries to persuade by overwhelming those considering an argument with such a volume of material that the argument sounds plausible, superficially appears to be well-researched, and it is so laborious to untangle and check supporting facts that the argument might be allowed to slide by unchallenged.

17.  Accent

• Accent, which occurs only in speaking and consists of emphasizing the wrong word in a sentence. e.g., "He is a fairly good pianist," according to the emphasis on the words, may imply praise of a beginner's progress or insult of an expert pianist.

18.  Figure of Speech

• Figure of Speech, the confusion between the metaphorical and ordinary uses of a word or phrase.

• Example: The sailor was at home on the sea.
• Problem: The expression 'to be at home' does not literally mean that one's domicile is in that location.

  

19.  Fallacy of Misplaced Concretion

• Fallacy of Misplaced Concretion, identified by Whitehead in his discussion of metaphysics, this refers to the reification of concepts which exist only in discussion.
•  Example 1

Timmy argues:

• Billy is a good tennis player.
• Therefore, Billy is 'good', that is to say a 'morally' good person.
• Here the problem is that the word good has different meanings, which is to say that it is an ambiguous word. In the premise, Timmy says that Billy is good at some particular activity, in this case tennis. In the conclusion, Timmy states that Billy is a morally good person.
• These are clearly two different senses of the word "good". The premise might be true but the conclusion can still be false: Billy might be the best tennis player in the world but a rotten person morally. However, it is not legitimate to infer he is a bad person on the ground there has been a fallacious argument on the part of Timmy. Nothing concerning Billy's moral qualities is to be inferred from the premise.
• Appropriately, since it plays on an ambiguity, this sort of fallacy is called the fallacy of equivocation, that is, equating two incompatible terms or claims.

• Example 2

One posits the argument:  

• Nothing is better than eternal happiness.  
• Eating a hamburger is better than nothing.
• Therefore, eating a hamburger is better than eternal happiness.
• This argument has the appearance of an inference that applies transitivity of the two-placed relation is better than, which in this critique we grant is a valid property. The argument is an example of syntactic ambiguity.
• In fact, the first premise semantically does not predicate an attribute of the subject, as would for instance the assertion, "Nothing is better than eternal happiness." 
• In fact it is semantically equivalent to the following universal quantification:  "Everything fails to be better than eternal happiness." 
• So instantiating this fact with eating a hamburger, it logically follows that  "Eating a hamburger fails to be better than eternal happiness." 
• Note that the premise "A hamburger is better than nothing" does not provide anything to this argument.
• This fact really means something such as, "Eating a hamburger is better than eating nothing at all." 
• Thus this is a fallacy of equivocation.

20.  Deductive fallacy

Main article: Deductive fallacy In philosophy, the term logical fallacy properly refers to a formal fallacy: a flaw in the structure of a deductive argument which renders the argument invalid.

However, it is often used more generally in informal discourse to mean an argument which is problematic for any reason, and thus encompasses informal fallacies as well as formal fallacies.

The presence of a formal fallacy in a deductive argument does not imply anything about the argument's premises or its conclusion. Both may actually be true, or even more probable as a result of the argument (e.g., appeal to authority), but the deductive argument is still invalid because the conclusion does not follow from the premises in the manner described. By extension, an argument can contain a formal fallacy even if the argument is not a deductive one; for instance an inductive argument that incorrectly applies principles of probability or causality can be said to commit a formal fallacy.

Hayek Vs. Keynes: 2nd Round

This is an excellent video for those interested in an entertaining break down of the two economic/political ideologies at war in our country today, and has been going on for almost a century.  The stakes are high.

---

End Fractional-Reserve Banking: Part I

The Basics:

Law of Identity:  A is A

Law of Excluded Middle:  Anything is either A or non-A

Law of Contradiction:  Nothing can be both A and non-A at the same time in the same respect

Law of Causality:  The relationship between cause and effect

The Problem:

Fractional-reserve banking is a fraudulent process because it violates the law of contradiction.  Because it is a fraud it is incompatible with the free-market; therefore, free-market laws should prohibit such frauds and protect individuals from it.  Our whole financial system, however, is designed around concealing that fact and it’s designed around sustaining its operation besides.  The motive for maintaining this particular contradiction (as far as I can tell) is that there is a ton of money to be earned and because it’s lasted this long thus far (i.e., status quo).  It will soon be coming to an end, as most contradictions eventually do, one way or another; either by choice or by the implacability of reality rearing its head — I sincerely  hope for the former.

Why fractional-reserve banking is a fraud:

What is fractional-reserve banking?  Fractional-reserve banking is what allows banks to lend part of its deposits (AKA assets) while maintaining a small fraction (in this example 10%) in reserve; thus, the term “fractional-reserve banking”.  That doesn’t sound so bad, that is until one carries it out to its logical conclusion. 

Let’s say for the sake of argument that only $1000 exists in circulation, only one bank exists, and there is only one depositor (so far) at this bank, who deposited the existing $1000.  The bank can now lend $900 while maintaining $100 in reserve.  That $900 gets spent and then deposited back into the bank.  Because banks do not care about the source of their deposits, that $900 is counted as an asset.  The bank can now lend 90% of $900 while maintaining 10% in reserve.  That lent money gets spend, it’s deposited back into the bank, and it’s counted as an asset which the bank can now lend 90% of again.  This cycle can continue until the very last penny.  The result being that $1000 is in the reserve (the original $1000), $9000 is on the books as lent out, and $10,000 is on the books for deposits.  That should raise a few eyebrows, but it gets worse.

Here in lies the contradiction; that $1000 is claimed to be owned by several people.  People will spend their deposit as though they own it.  People will assume that their money exists in full.  Keep in mind that nothing can be A and non-A at the same time in the same respect – that would be a contradiction.  In this case, that $1000 belongs to the first depositor and not to the first depositor at the same time in the same respect — that is a contradiction.  Any one or all of its many owners may go the bank to claim “their” money — you better be the first one in line though because only $1000 exists.

---

The New American Dream

Freedom to earn, use, and trade one's property by right was the American dream; which has since been incrementally replaced with extra privileges to the unearned at the expense of man's rights. The principles involved with the old American dream were derived from a familiar principle: right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The new American dream is unfortunately derived from an equally familiar principle: from each according to their ability to each according to their need.

Under the old American dream individuals only have a right to their life, and all the other rights that naturally follow. They do not, however, have the right to the life of others, and cannot therefore, violate the rights of others. The new American dream contradicts this principle because it necessarily violates the rights of others in order to accomplish its aims. Both dreams cannot coexist; it's either/or.

To begin, let's break down the phrase, "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The meaning of the word life in the phrase is that individuals have a right to their own life and they are not owned by anyone or anything; their right to life is a given and need not be bought or justified.

The natural consequence of this understanding is that individuals take responsibility to support their own life; in order to accomplish that, however, a right to liberty is necessary. The application and limits of the word "liberty" stems from the meaning of the word "life." If one has the right to their life, that means they are at liberty to do whatever they want with their life. They are free to pursue what they value, and obtaining what one values has the natural consequence of happiness. The phrase, "right to the pursuit of happiness," assumes one owns their life by right and it assumes one is at liberty to pursue, acquire, and keep their values in order to achieve their happiness by right.

The new American dream views property ownership as a privilege -- i.e., by permission vice by right. Property is necessarily acquired by the actions one takes to earn it; therefore, if property is a privilege, then so is liberty. Liberty is the natural consequence of those who own their life; therefore, if liberty is a privilege, then ultimately so is one’s life.

Within the new American dream, society (i.e., our government) "owns" its individuals; it assumes the responsibility of supporting those who cannot or will not support themselves.  In order to accomplish that, society grants special privileges to the needy by sacrificing the rights of those who are able and willing to support themselves. This gross violation of man’s rights and freedoms is of no consequence to those at the receiving end of special privileges -- indeed they demand more of it. (People used to compete to be the most able.  Wait until you see the winners of the competition for the most needy).

A rational thinker might ask, "How will the standards of need be determined?" It used to be on an individual basis. When an individual needed something, he worked for it and didn't force others to fulfill his need; he didn't even have to explain himself. Under this new American dream, however, it's decided by "disinterested" parties in a committee, who have control over the sole monopoly of legalized force -- i.e., the government.

The trick is, however, all parties have an interest. They just deflect and refuse to define their interests by claiming to have no personal self-interest in the matter whatever -- as if that would mean they don't actually have an interest; they do. They just leave it for you to figure out what it is. The truth is a lot uglier than the lie.

Enjoy the nightmare.