Author and New York Times writer Thomas L. Friedman wrote an article recently titled "Our One-Party Democracy." This article advocates for the end of the American Republic and the substitution of an autocracy of the enlightened. I was so disturbed by this suggestion appearing in the New York Times and made by such a prominent author that I had to express it in written form. I have written something which will probably never be read by another soul, whose words will be ignored if they are, and whose message will be lost.

Nonetheless, it cuts to the very core of my beliefs and why I will oppose for all my life every attempt to devalue our life and rob us of our freedom.



In Defense of Freedom

“One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks. But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages.”

So wrote Thomas L. Friedman on September 8, 2009 in an article titled “Our One-Party Democracy” in the New York Times. Throughout the article Friedman laments the fact that the DNC can not simply impose its will like the CPC can in China. Friedman points out how the enlightened Democratic Party is being road-blocked by backward Republicans who are refusing to play-ball on healthcare and flatly opposing cap-and-trade.

( Read more... )

This is something I wrote a while back. Ironically, many of the California voters who swooned over Obama and all his "progressive" policies proceeded to vote for a Constitutional amendment effectively making same-sex marriage illegal. Not only did they vote for it they were proud they did so; such an open-minded, enlightened bunch! Anyway, I wrote this in response to all those events and to point out the travesty that is surrendering individual rights to the whims of government (even if that government is a democracy).

Tyranny of the Majority Case Study: Proposition 8

On November 4th of last year California voters went to the polls and voted for change. The change they voted for was for a change in their state constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman, effectively outlawing same-sex marriage. This move was necessary after the California Supreme Court ruled that discrimination against same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. Those opposed to such a thing organized and successfully altered the constitution to ban same-sex marriage in their state.

( Read More )

Ultimately, economics is the study of resource allocation. Economists analyze what resources are available and how they are allocated across a society. They also analyze how these resources are allocated and what incentives are effecting this allocation. Efficiency is the maxim as it allows resources to be utilized more effectively, freeing up additional resources for alternative applications.

There is an ongoing debate about how resources are allocated. The two extremes are the "free-marketers" who believe that resources should be allocated purely through voluntary market interactions and "central-planners" who believe that resources should be allocated through a system of controls and mandates. Most people are in the gray area in between and lean towards one position or the other. Today, in light of the financial crisis and the various other "crises" facing us, most world leaders lean towards "central-planning."

I believe this is a dangerous trend; one that will result in the most inefficient resource allocation possible and result in a lower standard of living. The reasons for this are inherent in the nature of government itself and its methodology in determining appropriate resource allocation. Incentives in government decision making are entirely different and tend away from the efficiency drivers inherent in private industry.

Market Realities
For some strange reason we discuss the "public" and "private" sectors as if they operate on different planets. Even many economists have embraced this language and speak as if the actions of one are irrelevant to the other. This is totally fallacious and is probably a root cause in why so many people believe so strongly in planned economies.

The fact is that both the "public" and "private" sectors are competing for and utilizing the same resources. They are not drawing from two separate pools of resources and the "public" side can't simply conjure up resources to distribute at will. This means that the next step is to determine how these two sectors allocate the same resources, what incentives are involved to drive allocation.

Private Sector Allocation
The incentive here is obvious, profit. This is the reward investors, companies, workers receive for their risk. They surrender some resources, such as labor or capital, in anticipation of a greater return later. Profits are attained, primarily, in two ways. One, through expanding sales. The more units sold the greater the take. Two, through reducing production costs. This causes the "private" sector to drive towards efficiency. They try to combine the various factors of production, again, primarily labor and capital, in ever more efficient ways.

The results of these two methods are the lowering of prices during the product life-cycle. In a drive to sell additional units companies will lower prices. As they do this they also try to lower per-unit costs by increasing their efficiency. This allows them to lower prices further while still increasing profits.

It was for these two reasons that Henry Ford developed the assembly line and the $5 day, doubling workers' wages. The assembly line dramatically increased efficiency, as workers became specialists in their particular area and the product was brought to them. Additionally, the higher pay resulted in much better worker retention meaning costs were reduced as fewer new workers required training.

In the private sector the incentives demand efficiency and lowering costs. This also requires lowering prices. If an efficient production method is developed without a corresponding decrease in prices than a capitalized entrepreneur will enter the market and sell at a lower price, since profits are still to be made. Lowering prices and the drive to efficiency means more resources (including consumer capital) are available for other purposes.

Public Sector Allocation
The incentives in the public sector are a bit more convoluted. Profits are irrelevant because the government has the ability to tax (that is, to forcibly seize capital from society). Often, the reason governments step in is because of a perceived "unjust" (not necessarily inefficient) allocation of resources. This, however, has nothing to do with the incentives effecting how those resources are allocated once the "public" sector is involved.

Often times, politicians will pay lip-service to efficiency. There is much talk of cleaning up waste or otherwise reducing costs. The incentives to do so are simply non-existent, however, as the government can simply take (or "make") what resources are necessary. It does this without any mechanism to calculate the costs involved and without any direct impact on its ability to do so in the future. This means that if it is discovered that political objectives can only be attained inefficiently then so be it. This issue is exasperated when politicians' careers are riding on their ability to deliver on campaign promises.

In this situation when the political will for efficiency dries up it is sacrificed in favor of maintaining services. Bureaucracy is entrenched as it is tasked with delivering these services. Over time innovation is stifled as managers promote those of like mind while isolating those who disagree. Groupthink becomes the order of the day and though this produces waste the lack of profit-seeking makes this irrelevant.

The profit potential of this market is limited as government interference distorts costs. The "private" sector finds it increasingly difficult to compete with an entity which can simply take what it needs. Eventually, it is impossible and they abandon the industry altogether. Investors direct their resources to markets where the profit potential is greater. Suppliers, likewise, move into new markets where their resources can yield greater results.

As resources are withdrawn from the market the government must seize them from outside of it and pump them in. This results in fewer available resources for other purposes. Without the threat of failure the "public" sector simply has no reason to combine resources in a more efficient manner. Furthermore, the only threat is that if they cut services they will lose elections so politicians sacrifice other causes for their chosen one(s).

Force, the Ultimate Advantage
The real difference between the "public" and "private" sectors is the use of force. When inefficiences creep in entities have to make tough choices. The "private" sector faces failure if it does not reverse course. It must find ways to continually increase efficiency by lowering costs and increasing sales. This results in lower prices and wealth creation (really, the freeing up of resources for alternative purposes).

The "public" sector, on the other hand, does not face such failure. Instead, it has the tempting option of simply seizing what is necessary to maintain services. This results in inefficiencies as they are not forced to react to market forces in the same way, they can simply reallocate resources through force. This drives out competition and begins a spiral of increasing costs and prices. This results in money creation to continue to fund such excesses which causes a further deterioration in resources.

Governments fail at resources allocation because the incentives driving efficiency are simply non-existent. When it becomes politically expedient to ignore inefficiencies politicians will do so. They can do this because they are safe in the knowledge that they can utilize force to get what they need. The ability to tax is the ultimate security.

Lord Acton once said, "Power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely." Governments fail at resource allocation because they have the power to ignore market realities. They can ignore increasing inefficiences, rising costs, waste, and a myriad of other concerns which the "private" sector simply can not; and they can do all of this because they have the power to use force. Power does tend to corrupt and corruption in resource allocation is dangerous, even deadly, for all of us.

Reposted from Mises Daily. An essay written by Nobel Prize-winning author William Faulkner. Perhaps the most eloquent explanation of why rights come with responsibilities and how people have abdicated responsibilities and thus lost their rights.


"Years ago our fathers founded this nation on the premise of the rights of man. As they expressed it, "the inalienable right of man to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

In those days they knew what those words meant, not only the ones who expressed them, but the ones who heard and believed and accepted and subscribed to them. Because until that time, men did not always have those rights. At least, until that time, no nation had ever been founded on the idea that those rights were possible, let alone inalienable. So not only the ones who said the words, but the ones who merely heard them, knew what they meant. Which was this: "Life and liberty in which to pursue happiness. Life free and secure from oppression and tyranny, in which all men would have the liberty to pursue happiness."

And both of them knew what they meant by "pursue." They did not mean just to chase happiness, but to work for it. And they both knew what they meant by "happiness" too: not just pleasure, idleness, but peace, dignity, independence and self-respect; that man's inalienable right was the peace and freedom in which, by his own efforts and sweat, he could gain dignity and independence, owing nothing to any man.

We knew what the words meant then, because we didn't have these things. And, since we didn't have them, we knew their worth. We knew that they were worth suffering and enduring and, if necessary, even dying to gain and preserve. We were willing to accept even the risk of death for them, since even if we lost them ourselves in relinquishing life to preserve them, we would still be able to bequeath them intact and inalienable to our children.

Which is exactly what we did, in those old days. We left our homes, the land and graves of our fathers and all familiar things. We voluntarily gave up, turned our backs on, a security which we already had and which we could have continued to have, as long as we were willing to pay the price for it, which price was our freedom — of liberty of thought and independence of action and the right of responsibility. That is, by remaining in the old world, we could have been not only secure, but even free of the need to be responsible. Instead, we chose the freedom, the liberty, the independence and the inalienable right to responsibility.

Almost without charts, in frail wooden ships with nothing but sails and our desire and will to be free to move them, we crossed an ocean which did not even match the charts we did have; we conquered a wilderness in order to establish a place, not to be secure in because we did not want that, we had just repudiated that, just crossed three thousand miles of dark and unknown sea to get away from that; but a place to be free in, to be independent in, to be responsible in.

And we did it. Even while we were still battling the wilderness with one hand, with the other we fended and beat off the power which would have followed us even into the wilderness we had conquered, to compel and hold us to the old way. But we did it. We founded a land, and founded in it not just our right to be free and independent and responsible, but the inalienable duty of man to be free and independent and responsible. What I am talking about is responsibility. Not just the right but the duty of man to be responsible, the necessity of man to be responsible if he wishes to remain free; not just responsible to and for his fellow man, but to himself; the duty of a man, the individual, each individual, every individual, to be responsible for the consequences of his own acts, to pay his own score, owing nothing to any man.

We knew it once, had it once. Because why? Because we wanted it above all else, we fought for it, endured, suffered, died when necessary, but gained it, established it, to endure for us and then to be bequeathed to our children.

Only, something happened to us. The children inherited. A new generation came along, a new era, a new age, a new century. The times were easier; the life and future of our nation as a nation no longer hung in balance; another generation, and we no longer had enemies, not because we were strong in our youth and vigor, but because the old tired rest of earth recognized that here was a nation founded on the principle of individual man's responsibility as individual man.

But we still remembered responsibility, even though, with easier times, we didn't need to keep the responsibility quite so active, or at least not so constantly so. Besides, it was not only our heritage, it was too recent yet for us to forget it, the graves were still green of them who had bequeathed it to us, and even of them who had died in order that it might be bequeathed. So we still remembered it, even if a good deal of the remembering was just lip-service.

Then more generations; we covered at last the whole face of the western earth; the whole sky of the western hemisphere was one loud American affirmation, one vast Yes; we were the whole world's golden envy; never had the amazed sun itself seen such a land of opportunity in which all a man needed were two legs to move to a new place on, and two hands to grasp and hold with, in order to amass to himself enough material substance to last him the rest of his days and, who knew? Even something over for his and his wife's children.

And still he paid lip-service to the old words "freedom" and "liberty" and "independence"; the sky still rang and ululated with the thunderous affirmation, the golden Yes. Because the words in the old premise were still true, for the reason that he still believed they were true. Because he did not realize yet that when he said "security," he meant security for himself, for the rest of his days, with perhaps a little over for his children; not for the children and the children's children of all men who believed in liberty and freedom and independence, as the old fathers in the old strong, dangerous times had meant it.

Because somewhere, at some moment, something had happened to him, to us, to all the descendants of the old tough, durable, uncompromising men, so that now, in 1952, when we talk of security, we don't even mean for the rest of our own lives, let alone that of our and our wife's children, but only for so long as we ourselves can hold our individual place on a public relief roll or at a bureaucratic or political or any other organization's gravy trough. Because somewhere, at some point, we had lost or forgot or voluntarily rid ourselves of that one other thing, lacking which, freedom and liberty and independence cannot even exist.

That thing is the responsibility, not only the desire and the will to be responsible, but the remembrance from the old fathers of the need to be responsible. Either we lost it, forgot it, or we deliberately discarded it. Either we decided that freedom was not worth the responsibility of being free, or we forgot that, to be free, a man must assume and maintain and defend his right to be responsible for his freedom.

Maybe we were even robbed of responsibility, since for years now the very air itself — radio, newspapers, pamphlets, tracts, the voices of politicians — has been loud with talk about the rights of man — not the duties and obligations and responsibilities of man, but only the "rights" of man; so loud and so constant that apparently we have come to accept the sounds at their own evaluation, and to believe too that man has nothing else but rights: not the right to independence and freedom in which to work and endure in his own sweat in order to earn for himself what the old ancestors meant by happiness and the pursuit of it, but only the chance to swap his freedom and independence for the privilege of being free of the responsibilities of independence; the right not to earn, but to be given, until at last, by simple compound usage, we have made respectable and even elevated to a national system, that which the old tough fathers would have scorned and condemned: charity.

In any case, we no longer have responsibility. And if we were robbed of it by such as this which now seems to have taken over responsibility, it was because we were vulnerable to that kind of ravishment; if we simply lost or forgot responsibility, then we too are to be scorned. But if we deliberately discarded it, then we have condemned ourselves, because I believe that in time, maybe not too long a time, we will discover that, as was said about one of Napoleon's acts, what we have committed is worse than a crime: it was a mistake.

Two hundred years ago, the Irish statesman, John Curran, said, "God hath vouchsafed man liberty only on condition of eternal vigilance; which condition if he break it, servitude is the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt." That was only two hundred years ago.

Our own old New England and Virginia and Carolina fathers knew that three hundred years ago, which was why they came here and founded this country. And I decline to believe that we, their descendants, have really forgotten it. I prefer to believe rather that it is because the enemy of our freedom now has changed his shirt, his coat, his face.

He no longer threatens us from across an international boundary, let alone across an ocean. He faces us now from beneath the eagle-perched domes of our capitals and from behind the alphabetical splatters on the doors of welfare and other bureaus of economic or industrial regimentation, dressed not in martial brass but in the habiliments of what the enemy himself has taught us to call peace and progress, a civilization and plenty where we never before had it as good, let alone better. His artillery is a debased and respectless currency which has emasculated the initiative for independence by robbing initiative of the only mutual scale it knew to measure independence by.

The economists and sociologists say that the reason for this condition is too many people. I don't know about that, myself, since in my opinion I am even a worse sociologist and economist than a farmer. But even if I were a sociologist or economist, I would decline to believe this. Because to believe this, that man's crime against his freedom is that there are too many of him, is to believe that man's sufferance on the face of the earth is threatened, not by his environment, but by himself: that he cannot hope to cope with his environment and its evils, because he cannot even cope with his own mass.

Which is exactly what those who misuse and betray the mass of him for their own aggrandizement and power and tenure of office, believe: that man is incapable of responsibility and freedom, of fidelity and endurance and courage, that he not only cannot choose good from evil, he cannot even distinguish it, let alone practice the choice. And to believe that, you have already written off the hope of man, as they who have reft him of his inalienable right to be responsible have done, and you might as well quit now and let man stew on in peace in his own recordless and oblivious juice, to his deserved and ungrieved doom.

I, for one, decline to believe this. I decline to believe that the only true heirs of Boone and Franklin and George and Booker T. Washington and Lincoln and Jefferson and Adams and John Henry and John Bunyan and Johnny Appleseed and Lee and Crockett and Hale and Helen Keller, are the ones denying and protesting in the newspaper headlines over mink coats and oil tankers and Federal indictments for corruption in public office. I believe that the true heirs of the old tough, durable fathers are still capable of responsibility and self-respect, if only they can remember them again.

What we need is not fewer people, but more room between them, where those who would stand on their own feet, could, and those who won't, might have to. Then the welfare, the relief, the compensation, instead of being nationally sponsored cash prizes for idleness and ineptitude, could go where the old independent uncompromising fathers themselves would have intended it and blessed it."

By all indications the government's "Cash-for-Clunkers" program is a huge success. It has effectively achieved multiple goals. First, it has gotten gas-guzzlers off the road. Those cars are destroyed utterly to ensure they will never pollute again. Second, its getting cash into the hands of auto-dealers (which filters back to suppliers and auto makers reminiscent of "trickle-down economics") and creating cash flows through financing programs. While the government's offering between $3,500 and $4,500 is substantial the average price for a new car is $28,400. That means that at best consumers will have to pay about $24,000. Not a small sum, so most consumers will enlist in a financing plan which will create a cash flow for the financiers.

While this program is being heralded as a "bail out that works" if you start really examining the program it looks like so many other booms that have led to tremendous busts.

Once you start scratching you quickly find that this program is not made of gold but instead simply gold coated lead (something the ancients referred to as counterfeiting). The program literally destroys productive assets, creates additional debt, broadcasts artificial signals to the markets, raises used-car prices, and threatens to blow up yet another bubble. Whether its big enough to accomplish inflating our economy again remains to be seen but it certainly demonstrates how such a bubble is manufactured.

The first issue is that this program destroys productive assets. Say what you will about their environmental impact, many of these cars get people from point-A to point-B. "Clunkers" are traditionally the cars of teenagers and lower income people. Many of the working poor need clunkers to get to work and do what they can to get out of poverty so maybe one day they can afford something other than a clunker. Whereas normally many of the clunkers being turned in would be sold to these needy people they are now simply destroyed. This effectively removes them from the marketplace and raises prices on those used cars that remain, thus making it even harder for someone choosing between months of groceries and a means of transportation.

The second issue is that this program adds to our ever growing mountain of national debt. While its a relative drop in the bucket its these small drops that have turned into the flood. The true costs are unknown at this juncture. Besides the money being shelled out for each trade-in taxpayers are on the hook for the destruction and disposal of these clunkers. All of this is financed by borrowed money which must be repaid at interest. Ultimately, whatever savings are generated by increased fuel efficiency may be lost or even dwarfed in interest payments.

One of the most major issues with the program is how exactly the beneficiaries will handle it. If they are wise they will collectively recognize that this is a one-time boost not fueled by any permanent economic improvement but by a one time government subsidy. If they do recognize this they will not dramatically increase production or orders for the new model years. It appears, however, that the Big 3 may be preparing to up production in order to address their wanning inventories. Under normal circumstances this would be prudent. This is most certainly not a normal circumstance, however, and doing so could be disastrous.

This is a classic bubble scenario. The artificial demand for new cars will drain inventories, indicating to auto makers that they must increase production. This will up their orders for the materials and labor necessary to meet the new demand. This increases sales for steel makers among others and this reverberates throughout other associated markets. It also attracts capital to these markets as investors note the increases and decide there is money to be made. However, all this excess is false. The overall demand for new cars has not increased because the economy is doing better and people have more money to spend on something like a new car. Eventually, the government money will stop flowing and then the demand will fall even as new cars are in transit to dealerships with more on the production line.

As this happens dealerships will face massive inventory problems. They will be forced to slash prices in order to move product, even taking losses just to clear room. They will ratchet back their orders for more cars from the auto makers but will be contractually obligated to take those already ordered. The producers will likewise cut back on their demands for associated products and simultaneously reduce their workforce. When this happens all that additional capital that flowed into these markets will evaporate as investors experience massive losses. These losses then affect their ability to invest elsewhere which effects credit markets.

This is essentially what happened with the housing bubble and we could end up in a worse situation once this all shakes out. Even worse, car makers shouldn't expect demand for new cars to pick up anytime soon. After all thousands of people are now driving 2009 or 2010 models so why would they buy 2011 or 2012 models?

Perhaps most galling, even if the bubble created isn't big enough to drive us further into recession, is that this program encourages further indebtedness. As stated, most people driving clunkers aren't exactly swimming in cash. This means for them to get those $28,000 or so cars they will have to get loans. For a period of years they will be paying these cars off (making them less likely to increase their debt load by buying another new car in a few years). This means that for that term period somewhere in the range of $28,000+ of their disposable income will be eaten up paying for their car. That's money that could go to education, food, energy, housing, leisure, investments, or whatever.

Ironically, should those same people default and have their cars repossessed they will find used cars more expensive because of the program. Even if they do manage to get out from under their loan (with their credit destroyed) and get a used car, they will still be paying for the program through taxes. This, of course, is made even worse if they lose their job due to the bursting of the latest bubble. The program actually has the potential to make the poor poorer.

Whether or not CARS can successfully manufacture another bubble remains to be seen. Hopefully, those left in the industry are smart enough to detect what's going on. If not it certainly threatens to dig this hole even deeper. We'll get out of this recession eventually but not until fundamentals change and fundamentally nothing has changed here.

When I first started driving I could fill up my tank on about $20. This was using 93 octane or better premium gasoline (supposedly necessary for "performance" vehicles). By the time I got a new car, two months ago, I was spending somewhere in the vicinity of $50 per fill up.

While there are a myriad of reasons for the increase in price the primary cause is inflation. We have been trained all our lives to accept and expect ever increasing prices. This is offset by ever increasing wages (yearly salary increases) at least in our minds. The reality is strikingly different, however, and the fact of the matter is we are losing purchasing power. While our nominal paychecks and bank accounts are going up our purchasing power is declining and declining sharply.

The increase in the cost of gasoline for me was about 150% over a period of about 6 years (2003-2009). Meanwhile, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics the average annual income in November of 2003 was $36,520. By May of 2008 (the last available data) the average annual income was $42,270; this represents a mere 15.7% increase. While I wasn't earning an income over this entire period if I was and received the average annual increase my raises would have been 134.3% less than necessary to keep up with my gasoline purchasing needs. That represents a significant loss of purchasing power relative to gasoline. Since I perceive gasoline as a need I spent that extra money which means I lost out on a litany of other goods, services, and investment opportunities.

Gas is a great example as to how we are losing purchasing power as time goes on. Another interesting tool is the inflation calculator provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. It calculates price increases based on the average prices of a basket of consumer goods. That is it calculates an average based on the stuff everyday people buy everyday. Using this calculator in what I could have purchased in 2003 with $20 would cost me $23.44 today. This means a 17.2% increase in general prices.

While gasoline may be an extreme example it is one of the few goods I can remember a specific price for and have noticed a significant increase in over time. Even though general price increases are only 1.5% higher than wages this still represents a loss of purchasing power. The effects of this loss are exponential.

It's interesting and somewhat disturbing but it is reality. Our wage increases are not keeping up with inflation and this means we must work harder and work longer. It is for this reason that people are finding it difficult to retire and for this reason that it is almost necessary to have two incomes. Inflation is an evil but it is official policy in most of the world. This will continue until we put a stop to it and let's hope we do so before it's too late.

Recently, I took a cruise to Alaska. While at sea the cruise director provided a number of activities to keep us entertained (and consuming alcohol if possible). One of these games was called "Majority Rules." The way this game works is that the host would ask a question then collect answers from the teams. These answers would be tallied and whichever answer was most common, whether it was right or wrong, would be considered correct. The teams with that answer, the majority, would be awarded a point while the teams without, the minority, would not.

There were 13 teams in the bar. While this seemingly means that 7 teams would have to agree in order to get points that's simply not the case. The reality of "Majority Rules" is that only a plurality is necessary for victory. Hypothetically, only two teams have to answer the same thing to achieve victory assuming that all other teams provide different answers.

After the first question my team was without points. We had not sided with enough other teams to get points. The team sitting directly next to us likewise failed to side with the winners. As we had been talking anyway it became obvious to us that working together would significantly increase our odds of victory. Without any of the analysis I presented above we naturally began colluding.

While it upped our chances of winning it also caused us to compromise on some answers. For instance, one of the questions was "what is the name another Holland-America ship other than the Zaandam [the ship we were on]?" Having been on another Holland-America cruise we knew the Noordam was a ship in the fleet, as was the Rotterdam. However, I speculated that most people would answer Amsterdam since that's a city in Holland and few people would know the other names. The other members of my team and our colluding partners rejected this because it was not the name of a ship in the fleet and instead went with Rotterdam.

The answer was, in fact, "Amsterdam" and all teams with that answer were awarded points. The fact that the Amsterdam was not even a ship in the fleet was entirely meaningless. The truth is irrelevant in "Majority Rules."

Ultimately, other groups colluded much more successfully. We lost by two points, the above answer and the answer before we began colluding. We could have won if I had traveled farther to collect answers and ensure they matched. There were several reasons why I didn't.

For one, it would not have allowed any one team to win. Unless the majority is constantly rotating then multiple teams will always win. No one would ever get the prize and the game would be rendered meaningless.

Two, the cruise director probably would just quit. I'm sure he would have quit asking questions once he realized 7 teams were going to be perpetually tied for first while the other 6 had no hope of victory.

Three, it was only a game and not worth the effort. I wasn't going to take the time necessary to travel to and consult with 6 other teams, the prize simply wasn't worth it.

Nonetheless, this simple and moderately entertaining game provides an excellent example of why democracy fails. While I'm sure this wasn't the cruise director's intent and only a nerd like me picked up on it there ware several important things to be taken from this game.

Firstly, the very idea of "Majority Rules" is disingenuous. It's actually a "Plurality Rules" game. All you need to do is make sure your answer has more support than any other. The more answers provided the less support your answer needs. Like I stated above, if we could get 11 different teams to provide 11 different answers then only 2 teams would have to answer the same thing and they would win. The same thing works in democracy the more divided the issue the less support you need to achieve victory.

Secondly, collusion is rewarded while honesty could go either way. The nature of the game provides an incentive for teams to work together. It causes them to compromise the truth in favor of that which will bring them victory. It also sets them against other teams. Since there is only one (or maybe a few) prize(s) they will try to limit their allies to ensure someone wins. This could even cause groups to actively work against each other (for instance, I could travel to a group or two and lie so they would put down different answers).

Thirdly, this collusion would tend to form several power groups. Two or more large groups would form. These groups would always consult with each other and provide the same answers. Ultimately, victory would go to the power group able to attract the largest number of smaller groups to its answers. This situation would also entrench the power groups so that no other power groups could emerge to compete with them unless some sort of internal dynamic broke the group apart.

Finally, if this kind of collusion took place in a simple game for a lame prize imagine the efforts gone through in the real world. Imagine to what ends people will go when the prize is power. While at first everyone may work together, keeping the prize on the table, a few ambitious people surely will begin to secretly form coalitions. Once others begin dropping out (getting bored with the process and viewing it as futile) this coalition will wait until it is a majority and then begin answering differently than the rest.

This situation results in a new game where only members of that coalition can play (all others are forever at least one point behind). Now, backstabbing begins within the coalition as certain groups begin to form against each other. Again they will bide their time answering uniformly until someone drops out, switches sides, whatever until a smaller faction forms a majority. Then they will strike putting all other members from the coalition perpetually behind them and effectively out of the game. This process will continue until only 2 teams remain, eternally deadlocked in a game of "Majority Rules."

This is the devolution of democracy from the ideal situation, equal distribution with everyone working together. Imagine its devolution in the real world. In the real word we are dealing with limited resources and limited lives. We strive to fulfill our wants and desires in competition with everyone else. Various methods have been developed to deal with this situation and among them is government. Government in the modern Western world is charged with fulfilling our needs and desires. Government has the power to give and take as it pleases with little constraint. This truly is power and those who wield it are greatly rewarded.

Democracy was formed in an effort to equitably distribute this power. As demonstrated by the above, this quickly fails and results in an oligarchy with the true majority trapped beneath the oligarchs. While there have been those who have attempted to correct this based on distribution (socialists) they have often failed because those charged with redistributing this power have hoarded it to themselves (Castro, Stalin). When it is acceptable to wield power over other people then human nature will direct the ambitious to become tyrants.

The only real solution is to remove the prize from the table, to remove power. So long as people can wield the weapon of government against others then democracy will fail. While democracy developed in response to monarchy it has not alleviated the tendency towards tyranny. In fact, it has masked tyranny with legitimacy by claiming that the "Majority Rules" are more important than what is right.


"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." -George Washington
"So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men." -Voltaire

Yesterday two major elections took place.

The first was in Lebanon. It was painted as a "pro-Western" bloc vs a "pro-Syria" bloc allied with Iranian-backed Hezbollah. This is a bit disingenuous. The ruling "pro-Western" bloc (March 14th Coalition) is really a self-deterministic bloc. They are certainly not pro-Israel (although they are not inherently hostile to Israel), they are not necessarily pro-US or pro-European either but are certainly much more receptive. Most importantly, they believe Lebanon's future should be determined by the Lebanese without the external pressures and influences brought on by Syria and Hezbollah.

Their efforts were almost ruined when Israel invaded a year or so ago. Israel invaded Lebanon under the auspices of wiping out Hezbollah not assaulting Lebanon. The Lebanese army was virtually paralyzed as it is vastly out gunned by Israel and would have lost any direct conflict, possibly incurring a renewed Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon. Hezbollah is well-funded and supplied by Iran and engaged directly with Israel. Furthermore, they used Iranian money to help those whose property had been destroyed in the conflict and this won them support. Ultimately, they forced their way into the government as the March 14th Coalition was forced to make deals with them.

Yesterday, elections were held pitting the March 14th Coalition against the pro-Syria pro-Hezbollah group and the March 14th Coalition won! Thankfully, it appears this administration is much more astute regarding foreign policy niceties than the previous one so hopefully our support will be much more vigorous.

The second was in Europe where European Parliament elections were held. The results are mixed but one thing is sure, Social Democrats lost and lost big. Social Democracy is what the current American regime is marching us towards. Basically, its fascism without the ugly name. No, that's not an exaggeration, fascism is a political-economic system which uses government power to foster private interests. Basically, market socialism. Sounds peachy but the reality is not so fun.

For all the talk about how great healthcare is in Europe I've never seen such fucked up people in my life. I literally encountered a guy with his leg wrapped around his cane. Also, poverty is rampant and acute. The only reason it has ostensibly worked thus far is because the United States pays for Europe's defense. That's quickly coming to an end and the financial crisis is exacerbating issues. While the media and governments talk about this as a market failure perusal of BBC boards shows that people are much more astute. Deficit spending and monetary manipulation is being questioned by people from all over the world and its amazing to engage in conversations with these people who are so much more perceptive than their "leaders."

We'll see how this all plays out but hopefully Lebanon will become more peaceful, more free, and return to its former status as the "Switzerland of the Middle East." I met a girl from Lebanon in New York who told me to come visit, maybe now I will.

Hopefully Europe will cease its own way to hell and continue to reject Democratic Socialism. While the victories of the racist socialists ("far-right") are alarming hopefully more centre-right and liberal politicians will be swept into power and spread liberty across the Old World even as its embers flicker here. Hopefully, more men like Daniel Hannan rise to prominence in European politics and continue to garner us allies across the pond.

So I've been doing some introspection lately. This has generally occurred for two reasons. First, I'm having to fill out all this stuff for graduation. Stuff for my loans, stuff to get my cap and gown, stuff to enroll for honors none sense, and stuff to actually get my degree. Second, I'm doing a massive project on Ford Motor Company for my Multinational Enterprise class.

Ford basically changed the world. Not even joking. The innovations introduced by that company at the beginning of the twentieth century from the production process to management technique were revolutionary. Essentially, this company was created by the will and tenacity of five or six men. Ford, Couzens, McGregor (Canada), the Dodge brothers, and Perry (UK) basically imposed their will on the world.

The reason that has caused me to do some introspection is because though I'm only reading about them I feel I am in their company and wonder as to my worthiness. At times at 22 I feel like I've already let opportunity pass me by and I will be recycled into a mundane life as another hapless employee. This is entirely ridiculous, of course, knowing that Ford himself was 40 when he began Ford Motor Company.

Regardless, I am at a loss as to where I will begin my journey. My whole life I have been preparing for my future and now that it's here I'm not really sure where to begin. My internship in DC will pay dividends, I'm sure, and I've made some great contacts at UNH but I'm not really sure where to focus my passion. Those men I'm researching and writing about were at the forefront of a revolution but I'm not sure where I am.

There's so much I want to accomplish I'm not sure my life will be long enough to actually do it. But I don't have the focus I feel like these men did so I'm afraid I won't accomplish anything. So, I've been trying to do some thinking to really zero-in on what I want to do and then put all my energy into that.

Anyway, I can't believe I'm going to be a college graduate soon and have most of my education (still considering an MBA or Masters) behind me. But that's the case and I guess it's time to start buckling down and getting serious about what I want to do with my life.

"It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat."
-Theodore Roosevelt