Murray Rothbard proved all interventions into the economy are a net loss, in his book Power and Market.
I don't insist people have to believe this (even though it's proved), but doesn't it seem just a bit unfair that my money is confiscated to pay for this stuff that I know can't possibly work??? Whatever happened to not forcing our religious beliefs on others, the liberal creed? Because as near as I can tell, this whole thing works on blind faith. There's no evidence. You just believe that the winner of the popularity contest can magically create more jobs than he destroys by infringing on people's rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. What is the basis for this claim? How could you ever compare, since there is no control for an experiment? It's obviously not scientific. What is the theoretical mechanism by which this is theorized to work?
There's no way to prove it with a scientific experiment, and any investigation of theory will universally point to the idea that all of this is a net loss. Looks like a cult to me. Can I have my freedom from these religious beliefs?
Stimulus is for lab rats. Not free people. Every regulation destroys an economic opportunity (not necessarily for the action which can no longer occur, but possibly for the entrepreneur who would've profitably and more efficiently addressed the problem without government). Every intervention destroys wealth. Every wealth transfer transfers wealth away from the optimal growth it otherwise would have caused, to things that we value less than what we would've purchased voluntarily.
I don't mean to single out liberals ... conservatives, or at least Republicans and some people calling themselves conservatives, were also all about stimulus during the last 4 to 8 years, especially during 2008. Sometimes they called it a bailout.
God calls it theft.
Search powered by Google
2009-11-07
Faith versus science
Posted by
David
at
11/07/2009 07:17:00 AM
0
comments
Labels: government as religion, intervention, popularity contest, power and market, stimulus
2009-10-22
"Stimulus" means you are in a cage
Stimulus is for lab rats, not economies of free people. Give us freedom. Man shall be neither free nor prosperous until the last politician is strangled with the entrails of the last bureaucrat.
What we need is for the government to quit causing the boom-bust cycle. Given a free economy, the resources we have will be allocated optimally for satisfying human wants and producing wealth, making us all better off.
Instead, we get items like the Federal Reserve, and "stimulus" packages when it goes wrong. Naked transfers of money and power; blatant infringements on liberty.
If I were free, I would be able to keep the dollars I earn and use them to bless this society in a way profitable for me and others. If I were free, I would be able to start a business of my choice with no permission or regulation from the government, and again I would thus be able to bless this society to my own profit and for the benefit of others.
If you won't do it for me, at least do it for my neighbors: give us freedom. Give people permission to get out of this mess! Give people permission to say "this government is no longer acting to secure my rights to life, liberty, and property, and I renounce my association with it and will establish another, with my neighbors, which shall have its foundation laid on such principles and be organized in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Government cannot solve the problem. The United States government is the problem. If you do not like theft, murder, and infringement of liberty, then the biggest criminal in the world and the source of the vast majority of all of these things which you do not like is the United States government.
It's over. Let freedom ring.
Posted by
David
at
10/22/2009 12:27:00 AM
0
comments
Labels: business-cycle, declaration-of-independence, entrepreneurship, free market, freedom, stimulus