BuzzCharts: Jerry Bowyer on Red State Republican Income on NRO Financial
Monday, July 11, 2005
Thursday, June 23, 2005
Battling Judicial Tyranny
Written By: John Semmens
Published In: Heartland Perspectives
Publication Date: May 24, 2005
Publisher: The Heartland Institute
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander Hamilton thought the judiciary would be the weakest branch of the federal government established by the U.S. Constitution.
On paper, it looks like Hamilton was right. The executive branch commands the army. The legislature controls appropriations and taxes. Both the executive and the legislature have direct links to voters--the ultimate source of sovereignty in a republic. The judiciary, by contrast, is dependent upon the executive for appointment and the Senate for confirmation.
But in 1803, the Supreme Court declared it had the authority to strike down laws incompatible with the Constitution.
As a concept, that isn't inherently bad. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Arduous steps are required to amend it. That wouldn't make much sense if any law passed by a simple majority in Congress were allowed to stand, even if it contradicted provisions of the Constitution.
Even so, Thomas Jefferson felt that allowing the Court to exercise such authority over the laws "would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy."
The current battle over judicial vacancies lends credence to Jefferson's fear. Democrats have been filibustering to block the Senate from voting on some of President George W. Bush's nominees. Democrats contend this filibuster is essential for preserving Constitutional government. But the filibuster is not an established Constitutional principle. It is a tradition of the Senate, in the past used primarily by southerners to prevent votes on civil rights legislation.
Resort to the historically stained filibuster is evidence of the seriousness of the struggle. Judicial appointments are tremendously important these days--largely because judges have gone well beyond their traditional role of interpreting the law and comparing statutes to the Constitution.
For example, in a recently decided case, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy asserted, "It is proper that we acknowledge the overwhelming weight of international opinion." Yet nowhere in the Constitution does it state or even imply that our courts are to use international opinion as a standard for rendering decisions.
One might think lawmakers of both major political parties would be uneasy with the overturning of American laws based on such non-American standards. Today, it might be Republican-passed laws that are disrespected by the court. Tomorrow, it might be Democrat-passed laws.
But both sides of the political aisle have accepted the concept that the courts will always have the last say. That's why both Democrats and Republicans are focused on who becomes a judge. Right now, the court system is loaded with Democrat appointees. Republicans aim to change that by appointing judges sympathetic to their ideological perspective.
The shift of power to the courts is transforming our government from the republic envisioned by the nation's founders into something more akin to the Republic envisioned by Plato. Plato was antagonistic to the idea that people could rule themselves. He favored rule by a few philosopher kings. The nine-member Supreme Court looks like the fulfillment of Plato's vision.
It doesn't have to be this way. Article III of the Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate the courts. HR 1070, the Constitution Restoration Act, proposes to restrict the courts' jurisdiction, bar reliance upon foreign laws in rendering decisions, and define the causes for impeachment of judges.
Whether it passes HR 1070 or chooses some other vehicle, Congress needs to reassert the primacy of elected representatives in making the laws of this country. If courts are to overrule statutes they ought to be able to point to the precise clause of the Constitution that invalidates the statute. Congress needs to scrutinize court decisions to ensure this standard is met and take action if it is not. This is our best option to try to ensure that "government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the Earth."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Written By: John Semmens
Published In: Heartland Perspectives
Publication Date: May 24, 2005
Publisher: The Heartland Institute
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander Hamilton thought the judiciary would be the weakest branch of the federal government established by the U.S. Constitution.
On paper, it looks like Hamilton was right. The executive branch commands the army. The legislature controls appropriations and taxes. Both the executive and the legislature have direct links to voters--the ultimate source of sovereignty in a republic. The judiciary, by contrast, is dependent upon the executive for appointment and the Senate for confirmation.
But in 1803, the Supreme Court declared it had the authority to strike down laws incompatible with the Constitution.
As a concept, that isn't inherently bad. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Arduous steps are required to amend it. That wouldn't make much sense if any law passed by a simple majority in Congress were allowed to stand, even if it contradicted provisions of the Constitution.
Even so, Thomas Jefferson felt that allowing the Court to exercise such authority over the laws "would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy."
The current battle over judicial vacancies lends credence to Jefferson's fear. Democrats have been filibustering to block the Senate from voting on some of President George W. Bush's nominees. Democrats contend this filibuster is essential for preserving Constitutional government. But the filibuster is not an established Constitutional principle. It is a tradition of the Senate, in the past used primarily by southerners to prevent votes on civil rights legislation.
Resort to the historically stained filibuster is evidence of the seriousness of the struggle. Judicial appointments are tremendously important these days--largely because judges have gone well beyond their traditional role of interpreting the law and comparing statutes to the Constitution.
For example, in a recently decided case, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy asserted, "It is proper that we acknowledge the overwhelming weight of international opinion." Yet nowhere in the Constitution does it state or even imply that our courts are to use international opinion as a standard for rendering decisions.
One might think lawmakers of both major political parties would be uneasy with the overturning of American laws based on such non-American standards. Today, it might be Republican-passed laws that are disrespected by the court. Tomorrow, it might be Democrat-passed laws.
But both sides of the political aisle have accepted the concept that the courts will always have the last say. That's why both Democrats and Republicans are focused on who becomes a judge. Right now, the court system is loaded with Democrat appointees. Republicans aim to change that by appointing judges sympathetic to their ideological perspective.
The shift of power to the courts is transforming our government from the republic envisioned by the nation's founders into something more akin to the Republic envisioned by Plato. Plato was antagonistic to the idea that people could rule themselves. He favored rule by a few philosopher kings. The nine-member Supreme Court looks like the fulfillment of Plato's vision.
It doesn't have to be this way. Article III of the Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate the courts. HR 1070, the Constitution Restoration Act, proposes to restrict the courts' jurisdiction, bar reliance upon foreign laws in rendering decisions, and define the causes for impeachment of judges.
Whether it passes HR 1070 or chooses some other vehicle, Congress needs to reassert the primacy of elected representatives in making the laws of this country. If courts are to overrule statutes they ought to be able to point to the precise clause of the Constitution that invalidates the statute. Congress needs to scrutinize court decisions to ensure this standard is met and take action if it is not. This is our best option to try to ensure that "government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the Earth."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
You are Pope Pius XII. You're efficient and
dedicated, but not very approachable.
Which Twentieth Century Pope Are You?
brought to you by Quizilla
Monday, May 23, 2005
Lies? Only When Republicans Tell them, Right?
Written by Evan Sayet
Sunday, May 22, 2005
Sandy Berger is caught cramming top-secret intelligence documents down the front of his pants. Dan Rather is caught using forged documents to try to influence a presidential election.
John Kerry slanders a million of his "band of brothers" in bogus testimony before Congress and then continues to lie for the next 30 years, claiming that in 1968 he was sent by Richard Nixon (who wasn’t president yet) to Cambodia on Christmas Eve (which never happened), hearing the Vietnamese "sing Christmas carols" (the Vietnamese are Buddhists and don't celebrate Christmas) and being fired upon by the Khmer Rouge (which didn't become a military force until a half decade later).
Howard Dean attempts to spread outrageous lies about President Bush about the events of 9/11, only admitting – after being caught in his dissembling – that he never believed the lies himself. Al Sharpton makes his name by helping to fake the rape of a young child. Ted Kennedy clings to his family name after leaving his "female companion" to drown while he swims to shore to sober up before calling the police.
And Bill Clinton – well, he “never had sex with that woman!”
Al Gore recognizes that if he is going to be of any future relevance, he must join the parade of liars. He quickly reinvents himself by morphing from a quiet, thoughtful policy wonk to a demagogue spewing the anti-American venom and propaganda that has become the coin of the realm in today's Democratic Party.
The leadership of the Democratic Party gives a standing ovation to Michael Moore’s fake documentary, which they know to be nothing more than a lie-filled, hate-filled, anti-American propaganda piece. And Ward Churchill's lies not only gain him tenured employment but elevate him to department head at the University of Colorado.
These are not odd zealots but the heart and soul of today's Democratic Party. From its most recent standard bearer to the newly-minted head of the DNC, to its leading voices in "civil rights" issues, to its top foreign policy advisors, to its House and Senate leadership and beyond, lying has become the party’s defining trait, while the few Democrats too decent to lie – the Joe Liebermans and Dick Gephardts, for example – find themselves with less support among the party faithful than did Saddam Hussein and Yasser Arafat.
It is dificult to take seriously charges that Republicans are "liars" when that accusation is leveled in books like Al Franken's "Lying Liars and the Lying Lies They Tell." After all, how much credence can be given Franken when he had to testify in a court of law – to save himself from a mountain of libel suits – that his book was never intended to be taken seriously? The court agreed that no reasonable person could read "Lying Liars" and think it factual and thus the book was published as a fictional joke book.
So why do Democrats lie? Well, for one thing, they have to. Democrats recognize that the vast majority of the American people reject their basic philosophy – as they did resoundingly in the last presidential and congressional elections – which says that all domestic problems can be solved with forced confiscation and redistribution of income, all social issues can be resolved by more and more government control over the citizenry, and all international questions can be answered by ceding American sovereignty to corrupt foreign powers like France and corrupt organizations like the United Nations.
Further they have to lie because their track record is one of utter failure. The Democrats had 40 years of uninterrupted social experimentation that yielded little-to-nothing that enhanced our democracy, either domestically or in terms of foreign affairs. Just like the failing regimes of socialist Europe and the failed regime of communist Russia, Democrats cannot point to a single time when leftism – including their own – hasn't brought despair.
After decades of Democrat-driven "affirmative action," "new math," and "multicultural" experiments, blacks are still disproportionately members of an underclass and our schools (unlike those of the past that created "The Greatest Generation") are now so dysfunctional that we have to outsource the simplest jobs to countries like India. Forty years of leftism has left America more divided, not less divided, as the left pursues its agenda of replacing a "melting pot" that worked with a "mosaic" of multiculturalism, multilingualism, and America bashing that clearly doesn’t.
These are the tactical reasons that make Democrats lie. Leftists are also liars for philosophical reasons and because, I believe, of psychological aberrations. In the words of former feminist leader Tammy Bruce, leftwing Democrats are "malignant narcissists." In their arrogance, modern liberals believe in nothing greater than themselves and that whatever they say – anything that advances their agenda – must be "the truth."
The flipside of this coin is that they believe that anyone who disagrees with them must be – can only be – stupid or liars or racists. In their self-serving, self-aggrandizing minds, they justify their lies in the name of doing the rest of us a favor, the better to get us to do what they believe is the "right" thing.
Believing in nothing but self doesn't just mean rejecting the obvious higher callings of God, freedom, family, and country, but even the smaller things that good people once respected and honored are rejected by today's Democrats.
In times past, a journalist might have had the same ideological bent as a Dan Rather, but his respect for his profession – what they used to call "journalistic integrity" – kept him from being an out-and-out liar. In the old days, Hollywood's love for the movies compelled them to award the best picture Oscar to what was really the best picture. Today, without regard to the quality of the film, the award is given to any movie that advances the leftists' agenda. This year it was the pro-euthanasia "Million Dollar Baby," in contention with a pro-abortion film and one that touted the work of that known pervert Alfred Kinsey.
In another age, a museum curator placed beauty ahead of personal ideology and thus filled the halls of great museums with exceptional works based on their aesthetic value. Today's "artists" do not believe in beauty and thus seeks only to advance their anti-God agenda by filling the space with crosses drenched in urine and pictures of the Virgin Mary smeared in elephant dung.
Democrats lie because, with nothing bigger than themselves to believe in – not God, not country, not democracy, not art, not facts, not history, not freedom – they believe they themselves to be gods, and thus their beliefs become their own “gospel truth." Which is no truth at all!
About the Writer: Evan Sayet is a writer, speaker and pundit in Los Angeles and former communications director for LA for President Bush. He has been a TV and movie writer with credits ranging from "Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher" to the cult classic "Win Ben Stein's Money" and the Discovery Channel documentary "The 70's: When Decades Attack." He is currently working on a book: "Regurgitating the Apple: How Modern Liberals `Think.” Evan’s blog is SayetRight.Blogspot.com.
Written by Evan Sayet
Sunday, May 22, 2005
Sandy Berger is caught cramming top-secret intelligence documents down the front of his pants. Dan Rather is caught using forged documents to try to influence a presidential election.
John Kerry slanders a million of his "band of brothers" in bogus testimony before Congress and then continues to lie for the next 30 years, claiming that in 1968 he was sent by Richard Nixon (who wasn’t president yet) to Cambodia on Christmas Eve (which never happened), hearing the Vietnamese "sing Christmas carols" (the Vietnamese are Buddhists and don't celebrate Christmas) and being fired upon by the Khmer Rouge (which didn't become a military force until a half decade later).
Howard Dean attempts to spread outrageous lies about President Bush about the events of 9/11, only admitting – after being caught in his dissembling – that he never believed the lies himself. Al Sharpton makes his name by helping to fake the rape of a young child. Ted Kennedy clings to his family name after leaving his "female companion" to drown while he swims to shore to sober up before calling the police.
And Bill Clinton – well, he “never had sex with that woman!”
Al Gore recognizes that if he is going to be of any future relevance, he must join the parade of liars. He quickly reinvents himself by morphing from a quiet, thoughtful policy wonk to a demagogue spewing the anti-American venom and propaganda that has become the coin of the realm in today's Democratic Party.
The leadership of the Democratic Party gives a standing ovation to Michael Moore’s fake documentary, which they know to be nothing more than a lie-filled, hate-filled, anti-American propaganda piece. And Ward Churchill's lies not only gain him tenured employment but elevate him to department head at the University of Colorado.
These are not odd zealots but the heart and soul of today's Democratic Party. From its most recent standard bearer to the newly-minted head of the DNC, to its leading voices in "civil rights" issues, to its top foreign policy advisors, to its House and Senate leadership and beyond, lying has become the party’s defining trait, while the few Democrats too decent to lie – the Joe Liebermans and Dick Gephardts, for example – find themselves with less support among the party faithful than did Saddam Hussein and Yasser Arafat.
It is dificult to take seriously charges that Republicans are "liars" when that accusation is leveled in books like Al Franken's "Lying Liars and the Lying Lies They Tell." After all, how much credence can be given Franken when he had to testify in a court of law – to save himself from a mountain of libel suits – that his book was never intended to be taken seriously? The court agreed that no reasonable person could read "Lying Liars" and think it factual and thus the book was published as a fictional joke book.
So why do Democrats lie? Well, for one thing, they have to. Democrats recognize that the vast majority of the American people reject their basic philosophy – as they did resoundingly in the last presidential and congressional elections – which says that all domestic problems can be solved with forced confiscation and redistribution of income, all social issues can be resolved by more and more government control over the citizenry, and all international questions can be answered by ceding American sovereignty to corrupt foreign powers like France and corrupt organizations like the United Nations.
Further they have to lie because their track record is one of utter failure. The Democrats had 40 years of uninterrupted social experimentation that yielded little-to-nothing that enhanced our democracy, either domestically or in terms of foreign affairs. Just like the failing regimes of socialist Europe and the failed regime of communist Russia, Democrats cannot point to a single time when leftism – including their own – hasn't brought despair.
After decades of Democrat-driven "affirmative action," "new math," and "multicultural" experiments, blacks are still disproportionately members of an underclass and our schools (unlike those of the past that created "The Greatest Generation") are now so dysfunctional that we have to outsource the simplest jobs to countries like India. Forty years of leftism has left America more divided, not less divided, as the left pursues its agenda of replacing a "melting pot" that worked with a "mosaic" of multiculturalism, multilingualism, and America bashing that clearly doesn’t.
These are the tactical reasons that make Democrats lie. Leftists are also liars for philosophical reasons and because, I believe, of psychological aberrations. In the words of former feminist leader Tammy Bruce, leftwing Democrats are "malignant narcissists." In their arrogance, modern liberals believe in nothing greater than themselves and that whatever they say – anything that advances their agenda – must be "the truth."
The flipside of this coin is that they believe that anyone who disagrees with them must be – can only be – stupid or liars or racists. In their self-serving, self-aggrandizing minds, they justify their lies in the name of doing the rest of us a favor, the better to get us to do what they believe is the "right" thing.
Believing in nothing but self doesn't just mean rejecting the obvious higher callings of God, freedom, family, and country, but even the smaller things that good people once respected and honored are rejected by today's Democrats.
In times past, a journalist might have had the same ideological bent as a Dan Rather, but his respect for his profession – what they used to call "journalistic integrity" – kept him from being an out-and-out liar. In the old days, Hollywood's love for the movies compelled them to award the best picture Oscar to what was really the best picture. Today, without regard to the quality of the film, the award is given to any movie that advances the leftists' agenda. This year it was the pro-euthanasia "Million Dollar Baby," in contention with a pro-abortion film and one that touted the work of that known pervert Alfred Kinsey.
In another age, a museum curator placed beauty ahead of personal ideology and thus filled the halls of great museums with exceptional works based on their aesthetic value. Today's "artists" do not believe in beauty and thus seeks only to advance their anti-God agenda by filling the space with crosses drenched in urine and pictures of the Virgin Mary smeared in elephant dung.
Democrats lie because, with nothing bigger than themselves to believe in – not God, not country, not democracy, not art, not facts, not history, not freedom – they believe they themselves to be gods, and thus their beliefs become their own “gospel truth." Which is no truth at all!
About the Writer: Evan Sayet is a writer, speaker and pundit in Los Angeles and former communications director for LA for President Bush. He has been a TV and movie writer with credits ranging from "Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher" to the cult classic "Win Ben Stein's Money" and the Discovery Channel documentary "The 70's: When Decades Attack." He is currently working on a book: "Regurgitating the Apple: How Modern Liberals `Think.” Evan’s blog is SayetRight.Blogspot.com.
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
The Case for the Empire
weeklystandard.com ^ | Johnathan V. Last
Posted on 04/26/2005 8:29:53 AM PDT by Jimmyclyde
The Case for the Empire From the May 16, 2002 Daily Standard: Everything you think you know about Star Wars is wrong. by Jonathan V. Last 12/26/2002 12:00:00 AM
Jonathan V. Last, online editor
STAR WARS RETURNS today with its fifth installment, "Attack of the Clones." There will be talk of the Force and the Dark Side and the epic morality of George Lucas's series. But the truth is that from the beginning, Lucas confused the good guys with the bad. The deep lesson of Star Wars is that the Empire is good.
It's a difficult leap to make--embracing Darth Vader and the Emperor over the plucky and attractive Luke Skywalker and Princess Leia--but a careful examination of the facts, sorted apart from Lucas's off-the-shelf moral cues, makes a quite convincing case.
First, an aside: For the sake of this discussion, I've considered only the history gleaned from the actual Star Wars films, not the Expanded Universe. If you know what the Expanded Universe is and want to argue that no discussion of Star Wars can be complete without considering material outside the canon, that's fine. However, it's always been my view that the comic books and novels largely serve to clean up Lucas's narrative and philosophical messes. Therefore, discussions of intrinsic intent must necessarily revolve around the movies alone. You may disagree, but please don't e-mail me about it.
If you don't know what the Expanded Universe is, well, uh, neither do I.
I. The Problems with the Galactic Republic
At the beginning of the Star Wars saga, the known universe is governed by the Galactic Republic. The Republic is controlled by a Senate, which is, in turn, run by an elected chancellor who's in charge of procedure, but has little real power.
Scores of thousands of planets are represented in the Galactic Senate, and as we first encounter it, it is sclerotic and ineffectual. The Republic has grown over many millennia to the point where there are so many factions and disparate interests, that it is simply too big to be governable. Even the Republic's staunchest supporters recognize this failing: In "The Phantom Menace," Queen Amidala admits, "It is clear to me now that the Republic no longer functions." In "Attack of the Clones," young Anakin Skywalker observes that it simply "doesn't work."
The Senate moves so slowly that it is powerless to stop aggression between member states. In "The Phantom Menace" a supra-planetary alliance, the Trade Federation (think of it as OPEC to the Galactic Republic's United Nations), invades a planet and all the Senate can agree to do is call for an investigation.
Like the United Nations, the Republic has no armed forces of its own, but instead relies on a group of warriors, the Jedi knights, to "keep the peace." The Jedi, while autonomous, often work in tandem with the Senate, trying to smooth over quarrels and avoid conflicts. But the Jedi number only in the thousands--they cannot protect everyone.
What's more, it's not clear that they should be "protecting" anyone. The Jedi are Lucas's great heroes, full of Zen wisdom and righteous power. They encourage people to "use the Force"--the mystical energy which is the source of their power--but the truth, revealed in "The Phantom Menace," is that the Force isn't available to the rabble. The Force comes from midi-chlorians, tiny symbiotic organisms in people's blood, like mitochondria. The Force, it turns out, is an inherited, genetic trait. If you don't have the blood, you don't get the Force. Which makes the Jedi not a democratic militia, but a royalist Swiss guard.
And an arrogant royalist Swiss guard, at that. With one or two notable exceptions, the Jedi we meet in Star Wars are full of themselves. They ignore the counsel of others (often with terrible consequences), and seem honestly to believe that they are at the center of the universe. When the chief Jedi record-keeper is asked in "Attack of the Clones" about a planet she has never heard of, she replies that if it's not in the Jedi archives, it doesn't exist. (The planet in question does exist, again, with terrible consequences.)
In "Attack of the Clones," a mysterious figure, Count Dooku, leads a separatist movement of planets that want to secede from the Republic. Dooku promises these confederates smaller government, unlimited free trade, and an "absolute commitment to capitalism." Dooku's motives are suspect--it's not clear whether or not he believes in these causes. However, there's no reason to doubt the motives of the other separatists--they seem genuinely to want to make a fresh start with a government that isn't bloated and dysfunctional.
The Republic, of course, is eager to quash these separatists, but they never make a compelling case--or any case, for that matter--as to why, if they are such a freedom-loving regime, these planets should not be allowed to check out of the Republic and take control of their own destinies.
II. The Empire
We do not yet know the exact how's and why's, but we do know this: At some point between the end of Episode II and the beginning of Episode IV, the Republic is replaced by an Empire. The first hint comes in "Attack of the Clones," when the Senate's Chancellor Palpatine is granted emergency powers to deal with the separatists. It spoils very little to tell you that Palpatine eventually becomes the Emperor. For a time, he keeps the Senate in place, functioning as a rubber-stamp, much like the Roman imperial senate, but a few minutes into Episode IV, we are informed that the he has dissolved the Senate, and that "the last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away."
Lucas wants the Empire to stand for evil, so he tells us that the Emperor and Darth Vader have gone over to the Dark Side and dresses them in black.
But look closer. When Palpatine is still a senator, he says, "The Republic is not what it once was. The Senate is full of greedy, squabbling delegates. There is no interest in the common good." At one point he laments that "the bureaucrats are in charge now."
Palpatine believes that the political order must be manipulated to produce peace and stability. When he mutters, "There is no civility, there is only politics," we see that at heart, he's an esoteric Straussian.
Make no mistake, as emperor, Palpatine is a dictator--but a relatively benign one, like Pinochet. It's a dictatorship people can do business with. They collect taxes and patrol the skies. They try to stop organized crime (in the form of the smuggling rings run by the Hutts). The Empire has virtually no effect on the daily life of the average, law-abiding citizen.
Also, unlike the divine-right Jedi, the Empire is a meritocracy. The Empire runs academies throughout the galaxy (Han Solo begins his career at an Imperial academy), and those who show promise are promoted, often rapidly. In "The Empire Strikes Back" Captain Piett is quickly promoted to admiral when his predecessor "falls down on the job."
And while it's a small point, the Empire's manners and decorum speak well of it. When Darth Vader is forced to employ bounty hunters to track down Han Solo, he refuses to address them by name. Even Boba Fett, the greatest of all trackers, is referred to icily as "bounty hunter." And yet Fett understands the protocol. When he captures Solo, he calls him "Captain Solo." (Whether this is in deference to Han's former rank in the Imperial starfleet, or simply because Han owns and pilots his own ship, we don't know. I suspect it's the former.)
But the most compelling evidence that the Empire isn't evil comes in "The Empire Strikes Back" when Darth Vader is battling Luke Skywalker. After an exhausting fight, Vader is poised to finish Luke off, but he stays his hand. He tries to convert Luke to the Dark Side with this simple plea: "There is no escape. Don't make me destroy you. . . . Join me, and I will complete your training. With our combined strength, we can end this destructive conflict and bring order to the galaxy." It is here we find the real controlling impulse for the Dark Side and the Empire. The Empire doesn't want slaves or destruction or "evil." It wants order.
None of which is to say that the Empire isn't sometimes brutal. In Episode IV, Imperial stormtroopers kill Luke's aunt and uncle and Grand Moff Tarkin orders the destruction of an entire planet, Alderaan. But viewed in context, these acts are less brutal than they initially appear. Poor Aunt Beru and Uncle Owen reach a grisly end, but only after they aid the rebellion by hiding Luke and harboring two fugitive droids. They aren't given due process, but they are traitors.
The destruction of Alderaan is often cited as ipso facto proof of the Empire's "evilness" because it seems like mass murder--planeticide, even. As Tarkin prepares to fire the Death Star, Princess Leia implores him to spare the planet, saying, "Alderaan is peaceful. We have no weapons." Her plea is important, if true.
But the audience has no reason to believe that Leia is telling the truth. In Episode IV, every bit of information she gives the Empire is willfully untrue. In the opening, she tells Darth Vader that she is on a diplomatic mission of mercy, when in fact she is on a spy mission, trying to deliver schematics of the Death Star to the Rebel Alliance. When asked where the Alliance is headquartered, she lies again.
Leia's lies are perfectly defensible--she thinks she's serving the greater good--but they make her wholly unreliable on the question of whether or not Alderaan really is peaceful and defenseless. If anything, since Leia is a high-ranking member of the rebellion and the princess of Alderaan, it would be reasonable to suspect that Alderaan is a front for Rebel activity or at least home to many more spies and insurgents like Leia.
Whatever the case, the important thing to recognize is that the Empire is not committing random acts of terror. It is engaged in a fight for the survival of its regime against a violent group of rebels who are committed to its destruction.
III. After the Rebellion
As we all know from the final Star Wars installment, "Return of the Jedi," the rebellion is eventually successful. The Emperor is assassinated, Darth Vader abdicates his post and dies, the central governing apparatus of the Empire is destroyed in a spectacular space battle, and the rebels rejoice with their small, annoying Ewok friends. But what happens next?
(There is a raft of literature on this point, but, as I said at the beginning, I'm going to ignore it because it doesn't speak to Lucas's original intent.)
In Episode IV, after Grand Moff Tarkin announces that the Imperial Senate has been abolished, he's asked how the Emperor can possibly hope to keep control of the galaxy. "The regional governors now have direct control over territories," he says. "Fear will keep the local systems in line."
So under Imperial rule, a large group of regional potentates, each with access to a sizable army and star destroyers, runs local affairs. These governors owe their fealty to the Emperor. And once the Emperor is dead, the galaxy will be plunged into chaos.
In all of the time we spend observing the Rebel Alliance, we never hear of their governing strategy or their plans for a post-Imperial universe. All we see are plots and fighting. Their victory over the Empire doesn't liberate the galaxy--it turns the galaxy into Somalia writ large: dominated by local warlords who are answerable to no one.
Which makes the rebels--Lucas's heroes--an unimpressive crew of anarchic royals who wreck the galaxy so that Princess Leia can have her tiara back.
I'll take the Empire.
Jonathan V. Last is online editor of The Weekly Standard.
© Copyright 2005, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOPICS: Extended News; News/Current Events; Click to Add Topic
KEYWORDS: STARWARS; Click to Add Keyword
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ Report Abuse | Bookmark ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 posted on 04/26/2005 8:29:56 AM PDT by Jimmyclyde
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Logos124
An oldie but goodie...
2 posted on 04/26/2005 8:30:39 AM PDT by Jimmyclyde (Dying ain't much of a living boy...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: MadIvan
Ping.
3 posted on 04/26/2005 8:35:56 AM PDT by untenured
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
Free Republic
Home · Browse · Search Pings · Mail News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2003 Robinson-DeFehr Consulting, LLC.
weeklystandard.com ^ | Johnathan V. Last
Posted on 04/26/2005 8:29:53 AM PDT by Jimmyclyde
The Case for the Empire From the May 16, 2002 Daily Standard: Everything you think you know about Star Wars is wrong. by Jonathan V. Last 12/26/2002 12:00:00 AM
Jonathan V. Last, online editor
STAR WARS RETURNS today with its fifth installment, "Attack of the Clones." There will be talk of the Force and the Dark Side and the epic morality of George Lucas's series. But the truth is that from the beginning, Lucas confused the good guys with the bad. The deep lesson of Star Wars is that the Empire is good.
It's a difficult leap to make--embracing Darth Vader and the Emperor over the plucky and attractive Luke Skywalker and Princess Leia--but a careful examination of the facts, sorted apart from Lucas's off-the-shelf moral cues, makes a quite convincing case.
First, an aside: For the sake of this discussion, I've considered only the history gleaned from the actual Star Wars films, not the Expanded Universe. If you know what the Expanded Universe is and want to argue that no discussion of Star Wars can be complete without considering material outside the canon, that's fine. However, it's always been my view that the comic books and novels largely serve to clean up Lucas's narrative and philosophical messes. Therefore, discussions of intrinsic intent must necessarily revolve around the movies alone. You may disagree, but please don't e-mail me about it.
If you don't know what the Expanded Universe is, well, uh, neither do I.
I. The Problems with the Galactic Republic
At the beginning of the Star Wars saga, the known universe is governed by the Galactic Republic. The Republic is controlled by a Senate, which is, in turn, run by an elected chancellor who's in charge of procedure, but has little real power.
Scores of thousands of planets are represented in the Galactic Senate, and as we first encounter it, it is sclerotic and ineffectual. The Republic has grown over many millennia to the point where there are so many factions and disparate interests, that it is simply too big to be governable. Even the Republic's staunchest supporters recognize this failing: In "The Phantom Menace," Queen Amidala admits, "It is clear to me now that the Republic no longer functions." In "Attack of the Clones," young Anakin Skywalker observes that it simply "doesn't work."
The Senate moves so slowly that it is powerless to stop aggression between member states. In "The Phantom Menace" a supra-planetary alliance, the Trade Federation (think of it as OPEC to the Galactic Republic's United Nations), invades a planet and all the Senate can agree to do is call for an investigation.
Like the United Nations, the Republic has no armed forces of its own, but instead relies on a group of warriors, the Jedi knights, to "keep the peace." The Jedi, while autonomous, often work in tandem with the Senate, trying to smooth over quarrels and avoid conflicts. But the Jedi number only in the thousands--they cannot protect everyone.
What's more, it's not clear that they should be "protecting" anyone. The Jedi are Lucas's great heroes, full of Zen wisdom and righteous power. They encourage people to "use the Force"--the mystical energy which is the source of their power--but the truth, revealed in "The Phantom Menace," is that the Force isn't available to the rabble. The Force comes from midi-chlorians, tiny symbiotic organisms in people's blood, like mitochondria. The Force, it turns out, is an inherited, genetic trait. If you don't have the blood, you don't get the Force. Which makes the Jedi not a democratic militia, but a royalist Swiss guard.
And an arrogant royalist Swiss guard, at that. With one or two notable exceptions, the Jedi we meet in Star Wars are full of themselves. They ignore the counsel of others (often with terrible consequences), and seem honestly to believe that they are at the center of the universe. When the chief Jedi record-keeper is asked in "Attack of the Clones" about a planet she has never heard of, she replies that if it's not in the Jedi archives, it doesn't exist. (The planet in question does exist, again, with terrible consequences.)
In "Attack of the Clones," a mysterious figure, Count Dooku, leads a separatist movement of planets that want to secede from the Republic. Dooku promises these confederates smaller government, unlimited free trade, and an "absolute commitment to capitalism." Dooku's motives are suspect--it's not clear whether or not he believes in these causes. However, there's no reason to doubt the motives of the other separatists--they seem genuinely to want to make a fresh start with a government that isn't bloated and dysfunctional.
The Republic, of course, is eager to quash these separatists, but they never make a compelling case--or any case, for that matter--as to why, if they are such a freedom-loving regime, these planets should not be allowed to check out of the Republic and take control of their own destinies.
II. The Empire
We do not yet know the exact how's and why's, but we do know this: At some point between the end of Episode II and the beginning of Episode IV, the Republic is replaced by an Empire. The first hint comes in "Attack of the Clones," when the Senate's Chancellor Palpatine is granted emergency powers to deal with the separatists. It spoils very little to tell you that Palpatine eventually becomes the Emperor. For a time, he keeps the Senate in place, functioning as a rubber-stamp, much like the Roman imperial senate, but a few minutes into Episode IV, we are informed that the he has dissolved the Senate, and that "the last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away."
Lucas wants the Empire to stand for evil, so he tells us that the Emperor and Darth Vader have gone over to the Dark Side and dresses them in black.
But look closer. When Palpatine is still a senator, he says, "The Republic is not what it once was. The Senate is full of greedy, squabbling delegates. There is no interest in the common good." At one point he laments that "the bureaucrats are in charge now."
Palpatine believes that the political order must be manipulated to produce peace and stability. When he mutters, "There is no civility, there is only politics," we see that at heart, he's an esoteric Straussian.
Make no mistake, as emperor, Palpatine is a dictator--but a relatively benign one, like Pinochet. It's a dictatorship people can do business with. They collect taxes and patrol the skies. They try to stop organized crime (in the form of the smuggling rings run by the Hutts). The Empire has virtually no effect on the daily life of the average, law-abiding citizen.
Also, unlike the divine-right Jedi, the Empire is a meritocracy. The Empire runs academies throughout the galaxy (Han Solo begins his career at an Imperial academy), and those who show promise are promoted, often rapidly. In "The Empire Strikes Back" Captain Piett is quickly promoted to admiral when his predecessor "falls down on the job."
And while it's a small point, the Empire's manners and decorum speak well of it. When Darth Vader is forced to employ bounty hunters to track down Han Solo, he refuses to address them by name. Even Boba Fett, the greatest of all trackers, is referred to icily as "bounty hunter." And yet Fett understands the protocol. When he captures Solo, he calls him "Captain Solo." (Whether this is in deference to Han's former rank in the Imperial starfleet, or simply because Han owns and pilots his own ship, we don't know. I suspect it's the former.)
But the most compelling evidence that the Empire isn't evil comes in "The Empire Strikes Back" when Darth Vader is battling Luke Skywalker. After an exhausting fight, Vader is poised to finish Luke off, but he stays his hand. He tries to convert Luke to the Dark Side with this simple plea: "There is no escape. Don't make me destroy you. . . . Join me, and I will complete your training. With our combined strength, we can end this destructive conflict and bring order to the galaxy." It is here we find the real controlling impulse for the Dark Side and the Empire. The Empire doesn't want slaves or destruction or "evil." It wants order.
None of which is to say that the Empire isn't sometimes brutal. In Episode IV, Imperial stormtroopers kill Luke's aunt and uncle and Grand Moff Tarkin orders the destruction of an entire planet, Alderaan. But viewed in context, these acts are less brutal than they initially appear. Poor Aunt Beru and Uncle Owen reach a grisly end, but only after they aid the rebellion by hiding Luke and harboring two fugitive droids. They aren't given due process, but they are traitors.
The destruction of Alderaan is often cited as ipso facto proof of the Empire's "evilness" because it seems like mass murder--planeticide, even. As Tarkin prepares to fire the Death Star, Princess Leia implores him to spare the planet, saying, "Alderaan is peaceful. We have no weapons." Her plea is important, if true.
But the audience has no reason to believe that Leia is telling the truth. In Episode IV, every bit of information she gives the Empire is willfully untrue. In the opening, she tells Darth Vader that she is on a diplomatic mission of mercy, when in fact she is on a spy mission, trying to deliver schematics of the Death Star to the Rebel Alliance. When asked where the Alliance is headquartered, she lies again.
Leia's lies are perfectly defensible--she thinks she's serving the greater good--but they make her wholly unreliable on the question of whether or not Alderaan really is peaceful and defenseless. If anything, since Leia is a high-ranking member of the rebellion and the princess of Alderaan, it would be reasonable to suspect that Alderaan is a front for Rebel activity or at least home to many more spies and insurgents like Leia.
Whatever the case, the important thing to recognize is that the Empire is not committing random acts of terror. It is engaged in a fight for the survival of its regime against a violent group of rebels who are committed to its destruction.
III. After the Rebellion
As we all know from the final Star Wars installment, "Return of the Jedi," the rebellion is eventually successful. The Emperor is assassinated, Darth Vader abdicates his post and dies, the central governing apparatus of the Empire is destroyed in a spectacular space battle, and the rebels rejoice with their small, annoying Ewok friends. But what happens next?
(There is a raft of literature on this point, but, as I said at the beginning, I'm going to ignore it because it doesn't speak to Lucas's original intent.)
In Episode IV, after Grand Moff Tarkin announces that the Imperial Senate has been abolished, he's asked how the Emperor can possibly hope to keep control of the galaxy. "The regional governors now have direct control over territories," he says. "Fear will keep the local systems in line."
So under Imperial rule, a large group of regional potentates, each with access to a sizable army and star destroyers, runs local affairs. These governors owe their fealty to the Emperor. And once the Emperor is dead, the galaxy will be plunged into chaos.
In all of the time we spend observing the Rebel Alliance, we never hear of their governing strategy or their plans for a post-Imperial universe. All we see are plots and fighting. Their victory over the Empire doesn't liberate the galaxy--it turns the galaxy into Somalia writ large: dominated by local warlords who are answerable to no one.
Which makes the rebels--Lucas's heroes--an unimpressive crew of anarchic royals who wreck the galaxy so that Princess Leia can have her tiara back.
I'll take the Empire.
Jonathan V. Last is online editor of The Weekly Standard.
© Copyright 2005, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOPICS: Extended News; News/Current Events; Click to Add Topic
KEYWORDS: STARWARS; Click to Add Keyword
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ Report Abuse | Bookmark ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 posted on 04/26/2005 8:29:56 AM PDT by Jimmyclyde
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Logos124
An oldie but goodie...
2 posted on 04/26/2005 8:30:39 AM PDT by Jimmyclyde (Dying ain't much of a living boy...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: MadIvan
Ping.
3 posted on 04/26/2005 8:35:56 AM PDT by untenured
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
Free Republic
Home · Browse · Search Pings · Mail News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2003 Robinson-DeFehr Consulting, LLC.
Thursday, April 21, 2005
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1388479/posts
Free RepublicHome · Browse · Search
Bloggers & PersonalTopics · Post Article
Skip to comments.
Now with B16!The Curt Jester ^ 4/21/05 Jeff Miller
Posted on 04/21/2005 1:43:23 PM PDT by Atheist2Theist
You might have been told in the past that Humanae Vitaemins were not good for you or that if your conscience decided you didn't need Humanae Vitaemins you could safely ignore them. Latest cultural medical studies have proven the link between lack of Humanae Vitaemins and the lack of children. These studies show the extreme cultural malnutrition from not getting their *RDA of required spiritual nutrition.
Now with B16, Ut Unum Sintrum, has all the required nutrients you have relied on in the past and more. B16 works well with and expands with needed intake daily intake such as VII and JP2 (Beta-Karoltene) and will not interfere in any way them. In fact the synergetic effect will only enhance your spiritual metabolism.
The B16 caplets have a special smooth coating allowing you to swallow them without any water. Yet it is true with B16 you do not have to water it down in any way. Our B16 is doctrinally pure with no heretical impurities such as those found in anti-Humanae Vitaemins.
Studies have conclusively proven that people taking B16 daily will continue to have smooth running and orthodox metabolism for years to come. B16 in trials has proven not to be harsh or difficult as had been initially reported.
We are also introducing Ut Unum Sintrum for children since your children our never too young to start off with proper spiritual growth. Parents will be pleased to know that our Humanae Vitaemins are not sugar coated, just like everything else we offer with B16 in it. Guaranteed not to cause truth decay or any form of spiritual rot. The children's tablets come in fun shapes like German Shepherds and Rottweilers.
*Ratzinger Daily Allowance
Disclaimer: B16 is not a miracle drug and will not remove any crosses you might bear. Though clinical trials have shown that a steady diet of truth supplemented with B16 will enable you better to embrace your cross and to carry it daily. For best results please use B16 with plenty of prayer and thanks be to God.
Caution: B16 has been known to cause allergies, shrill behavior, and coughing fits to some theologians, clergy, religious, and laity. Especially those who have had Spirit of Vatican Flu in the past.
Tell your health care provider if you are dissident and they can help you overcome your deficient diet and prepare you for true health with full dosages of B16. Or contact your local Orthodoxpedic surgeon for further information.
TOPICS: Humor; ReligionKEYWORDS:
1 posted on 04/21/2005 1:43:24 PM PDT by Atheist2Theist
[ Post Reply Private Reply View Replies ]
To: Atheist2Theist
Please, Mister, please - don't play B17...
2 posted on 04/21/2005 2:03:42 PM PDT by Hegemony Cricket (I have learned to deal with change. Any possibility of letting me try some currency?)
[ Post Reply Private Reply To 1 View Replies ]
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
Free RepublicHome · Browse · Search
Bloggers & PersonalTopics · Post Article
FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2003 Robinson-DeFehr Consulting, LLC.
Free RepublicHome · Browse · Search
Bloggers & PersonalTopics · Post Article
Skip to comments.
Now with B16!The Curt Jester ^ 4/21/05 Jeff Miller
Posted on 04/21/2005 1:43:23 PM PDT by Atheist2Theist
You might have been told in the past that Humanae Vitaemins were not good for you or that if your conscience decided you didn't need Humanae Vitaemins you could safely ignore them. Latest cultural medical studies have proven the link between lack of Humanae Vitaemins and the lack of children. These studies show the extreme cultural malnutrition from not getting their *RDA of required spiritual nutrition.
Now with B16, Ut Unum Sintrum, has all the required nutrients you have relied on in the past and more. B16 works well with and expands with needed intake daily intake such as VII and JP2 (Beta-Karoltene) and will not interfere in any way them. In fact the synergetic effect will only enhance your spiritual metabolism.
The B16 caplets have a special smooth coating allowing you to swallow them without any water. Yet it is true with B16 you do not have to water it down in any way. Our B16 is doctrinally pure with no heretical impurities such as those found in anti-Humanae Vitaemins.
Studies have conclusively proven that people taking B16 daily will continue to have smooth running and orthodox metabolism for years to come. B16 in trials has proven not to be harsh or difficult as had been initially reported.
We are also introducing Ut Unum Sintrum for children since your children our never too young to start off with proper spiritual growth. Parents will be pleased to know that our Humanae Vitaemins are not sugar coated, just like everything else we offer with B16 in it. Guaranteed not to cause truth decay or any form of spiritual rot. The children's tablets come in fun shapes like German Shepherds and Rottweilers.
*Ratzinger Daily Allowance
Disclaimer: B16 is not a miracle drug and will not remove any crosses you might bear. Though clinical trials have shown that a steady diet of truth supplemented with B16 will enable you better to embrace your cross and to carry it daily. For best results please use B16 with plenty of prayer and thanks be to God.
Caution: B16 has been known to cause allergies, shrill behavior, and coughing fits to some theologians, clergy, religious, and laity. Especially those who have had Spirit of Vatican Flu in the past.
Tell your health care provider if you are dissident and they can help you overcome your deficient diet and prepare you for true health with full dosages of B16. Or contact your local Orthodoxpedic surgeon for further information.
TOPICS: Humor; ReligionKEYWORDS:
1 posted on 04/21/2005 1:43:24 PM PDT by Atheist2Theist
[ Post Reply Private Reply View Replies ]
To: Atheist2Theist
Please, Mister, please - don't play B17...
2 posted on 04/21/2005 2:03:42 PM PDT by Hegemony Cricket (I have learned to deal with change. Any possibility of letting me try some currency?)
[ Post Reply Private Reply To 1 View Replies ]
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
Free RepublicHome · Browse · Search
Bloggers & PersonalTopics · Post Article
FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2003 Robinson-DeFehr Consulting, LLC.
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
Monday, March 21, 2005
Sunday, March 20, 2005
Saturday, January 22, 2005
George Bush
La tercera revolución americana
Álvaro Martín
Recomiéndenos Volver
“ Siempre se ha dicho que George W. Bush emula a Ronald Reagan. Es mucho más claro para mí que un vínculo más profundo aún le une a Abraham Lincoln ”
El día había amanecido como los anteriores en Washington. Gris, lluvioso y gélido. El Presidente había despachado algunos asuntos antes de dirigirse al Congreso, donde también mantuvo contactos con senadores de ambos partidos. Después se encaminó a la balconada del ala Este del Capitolio donde juraría su cargo con la misma fórmula utilizada por George Washington el 30 de abril de 1789. El Presidente tomó asiento en la tribuna de oradores junto a su esposa. Continuaba lloviendo. Mary vio como su marido erguía sus 190 centímetros de estatura para aproximarse al podio desde donde se dirigiría al pueblo americano aquel 4 de marzo de 1865. En ese momento, el sol desgarró el velo de nubes y explotó en un paroxismo de luz sobre Abraham Lincoln. Lo que siguió fue la oración política más dramática y trascendental de la historia, cuarenta y un días antes de que el 16º Presidente abandonara ésta para alojarse por siempre en el corazón de los americanos por y para quienes él había salvado la Unión.
En 1861 el único contacto de un ciudadano americano con el Gobierno federal era el servicio postal. El dólar no existió hasta 1863. El ferrocarril transcontinental se ultimó en esa época. La expansión de la enseñanza superior data de entonces. EEUU fue creado por los Padres Fundadores, pero Abraham Lincoln alumbró la nación americana en una lucha titánica por la libertad, para que aquel país “concebido en libertad y dedicado a la proposición de que todos los hombres son creados iguales” “no pereciera de la faz de la tierra”. EEUU se conjugaba en plural hasta 1863. Hasta que Lincoln en Gettysburg conjuró los primeros vagidos de “un renacimiento de la libertad” para su nación.
¿Cuál era la última ratio de la Segunda Revolución Americana operada por Abraham Lincoln? En sus propias palabras de nuevo: “Al dar la libertad al esclavo, aseguramos la libertad del libre, igualmente honorables en aquello que concedemos y en aquello que preservamos”. 140 años después tenía que ser George W. Bush quien, en la alocución más emocionante y significativa de los últimos cuarenta años, fuera a afirmar lo mismo en medio de una guerra donde se dirime también “si esa nación, o cualquier nación, así concebida (en libertad) y así dedicada (a la igualdad)” puede sobrevivir.
Siempre se ha dicho que George W. Bush emula a Ronald Reagan. Es mucho más claro para mí que un vínculo más profundo aún le une a Abraham Lincoln. En agosto pasado publiqué un artículo en el diario ABC donde comparaba la situación electoral de Bush en esos días con la de Lincoln en el verano de 1864. La realidad es que los paralelismos van mucho más allá. George W. Bush inició el 20 de enero, con su Segundo Discurso Inaugural, la Tercera Revolución Americana, como Lincoln iniciara la Segunda el 1 de enero de 1863 con el Decreto de Emancipación”. EE UU es ahora, de nuevo, una potencia revolucionaria.
George W. Bush proclamó: "la supervivencia de la libertad en esta tierra depende de la supervivencia de la libertad en otras. La mejor esperanza de paz en nuestro mundo es la expansión de la libertad en todo el mundo"; es decir, la misma idea de Lincoln sobre la lucha por la libertad de los que no la tienen como forma de garantizar la nuestra. Y añadió: "Es la política de EEUU apoyar la aparición de movimientos democráticos en toda nación y cultura, con el fin último de terminar con la tiranía en el mundo". Esta idea, la destrucción de la tiranía, es tan manuifiestamente lincolniana que el Presidente Bush la citó explícitamente en su discurso: "Aquellos que niegan la libertad a otros no la merecen para sí; y, en la ley de un Dios justo, no pueden retenerla".
George W. Bush no empezó esta guerra, pero aceptó el desafío de defender la libertad (de nuevo Lincoln: "...un bando haría la guerra antes que dejar que la nación sobreviviera; el otro aceptaría la guerra antes que dejarla perecer"). Lincoln no empezó la Guerra Civil pero la aceptó para defender a la nación. Lincoln no se proponía abolir la esclavitud, sino restablecer el statu quo ante. Pero en 1862 la Guerra se convirtió en una Guerra revolucionaria de emancipación, cuando la fuerza del principio moral intersectó con la necesidad militar de quebrar las bases económicas de la potencia esclavista.
El 20 de enero de 2005, el Presidente Bush convirtió la Guerra contra el Terror, una guerra empezada por la seguridad, en una Guerra Revolucionaria de Liberación ("EEUU no fingirá que los disidentes encarcelados prefieren sus cadenas o que las mujeres desean su humillación y servidumbre...Aquellos que viven bajo la tiranía sabrán que EEUU no ignorará vuestra opresión ni excusará a vuestros opresores"). Y por la misma razón que Lincoln: la esclavitud de uno amenaza la libertad de todos.
El día había amanecido gris, con ráfagas de viento y nieve en Washington. Pero para cuando hubo abandonado la tribuna del ala este del Congreso, George W. Bush había completado una transformación lincolniana que quienes tenemos fe en la dignidad y la decencia del 43 Presidente siempre supimos que daría. Él es ahora the last, best hope of earth.
La tercera revolución americana
Álvaro Martín
Recomiéndenos Volver
“ Siempre se ha dicho que George W. Bush emula a Ronald Reagan. Es mucho más claro para mí que un vínculo más profundo aún le une a Abraham Lincoln ”
El día había amanecido como los anteriores en Washington. Gris, lluvioso y gélido. El Presidente había despachado algunos asuntos antes de dirigirse al Congreso, donde también mantuvo contactos con senadores de ambos partidos. Después se encaminó a la balconada del ala Este del Capitolio donde juraría su cargo con la misma fórmula utilizada por George Washington el 30 de abril de 1789. El Presidente tomó asiento en la tribuna de oradores junto a su esposa. Continuaba lloviendo. Mary vio como su marido erguía sus 190 centímetros de estatura para aproximarse al podio desde donde se dirigiría al pueblo americano aquel 4 de marzo de 1865. En ese momento, el sol desgarró el velo de nubes y explotó en un paroxismo de luz sobre Abraham Lincoln. Lo que siguió fue la oración política más dramática y trascendental de la historia, cuarenta y un días antes de que el 16º Presidente abandonara ésta para alojarse por siempre en el corazón de los americanos por y para quienes él había salvado la Unión.
En 1861 el único contacto de un ciudadano americano con el Gobierno federal era el servicio postal. El dólar no existió hasta 1863. El ferrocarril transcontinental se ultimó en esa época. La expansión de la enseñanza superior data de entonces. EEUU fue creado por los Padres Fundadores, pero Abraham Lincoln alumbró la nación americana en una lucha titánica por la libertad, para que aquel país “concebido en libertad y dedicado a la proposición de que todos los hombres son creados iguales” “no pereciera de la faz de la tierra”. EEUU se conjugaba en plural hasta 1863. Hasta que Lincoln en Gettysburg conjuró los primeros vagidos de “un renacimiento de la libertad” para su nación.
¿Cuál era la última ratio de la Segunda Revolución Americana operada por Abraham Lincoln? En sus propias palabras de nuevo: “Al dar la libertad al esclavo, aseguramos la libertad del libre, igualmente honorables en aquello que concedemos y en aquello que preservamos”. 140 años después tenía que ser George W. Bush quien, en la alocución más emocionante y significativa de los últimos cuarenta años, fuera a afirmar lo mismo en medio de una guerra donde se dirime también “si esa nación, o cualquier nación, así concebida (en libertad) y así dedicada (a la igualdad)” puede sobrevivir.
Siempre se ha dicho que George W. Bush emula a Ronald Reagan. Es mucho más claro para mí que un vínculo más profundo aún le une a Abraham Lincoln. En agosto pasado publiqué un artículo en el diario ABC donde comparaba la situación electoral de Bush en esos días con la de Lincoln en el verano de 1864. La realidad es que los paralelismos van mucho más allá. George W. Bush inició el 20 de enero, con su Segundo Discurso Inaugural, la Tercera Revolución Americana, como Lincoln iniciara la Segunda el 1 de enero de 1863 con el Decreto de Emancipación”. EE UU es ahora, de nuevo, una potencia revolucionaria.
George W. Bush proclamó: "la supervivencia de la libertad en esta tierra depende de la supervivencia de la libertad en otras. La mejor esperanza de paz en nuestro mundo es la expansión de la libertad en todo el mundo"; es decir, la misma idea de Lincoln sobre la lucha por la libertad de los que no la tienen como forma de garantizar la nuestra. Y añadió: "Es la política de EEUU apoyar la aparición de movimientos democráticos en toda nación y cultura, con el fin último de terminar con la tiranía en el mundo". Esta idea, la destrucción de la tiranía, es tan manuifiestamente lincolniana que el Presidente Bush la citó explícitamente en su discurso: "Aquellos que niegan la libertad a otros no la merecen para sí; y, en la ley de un Dios justo, no pueden retenerla".
George W. Bush no empezó esta guerra, pero aceptó el desafío de defender la libertad (de nuevo Lincoln: "...un bando haría la guerra antes que dejar que la nación sobreviviera; el otro aceptaría la guerra antes que dejarla perecer"). Lincoln no empezó la Guerra Civil pero la aceptó para defender a la nación. Lincoln no se proponía abolir la esclavitud, sino restablecer el statu quo ante. Pero en 1862 la Guerra se convirtió en una Guerra revolucionaria de emancipación, cuando la fuerza del principio moral intersectó con la necesidad militar de quebrar las bases económicas de la potencia esclavista.
El 20 de enero de 2005, el Presidente Bush convirtió la Guerra contra el Terror, una guerra empezada por la seguridad, en una Guerra Revolucionaria de Liberación ("EEUU no fingirá que los disidentes encarcelados prefieren sus cadenas o que las mujeres desean su humillación y servidumbre...Aquellos que viven bajo la tiranía sabrán que EEUU no ignorará vuestra opresión ni excusará a vuestros opresores"). Y por la misma razón que Lincoln: la esclavitud de uno amenaza la libertad de todos.
El día había amanecido gris, con ráfagas de viento y nieve en Washington. Pero para cuando hubo abandonado la tribuna del ala este del Congreso, George W. Bush había completado una transformación lincolniana que quienes tenemos fe en la dignidad y la decencia del 43 Presidente siempre supimos que daría. Él es ahora the last, best hope of earth.
Tuesday, December 21, 2004
The Monetary Economics of Thurston Howell III
by B.K. Marcus
[Posted August 31, 2004]
Gilligan's Island is now out on DVD, reawakening the unanswered questions of childhood: why does the Skipper let Gilligan help with anything when he knows he'll just screw it up? Why did the movie star take a day cruise in an evening gown? Why did two of the richest people in the world board a dinky boat with the hoi polloi instead of leasing a private yacht? And why do any of the other stranded castaways treat the millionaire's government money as valuable while stuck on an island where no such government can enforce its value?
Because it's just a dumb TV show.
But that last question stuck with me. Would fiat dollars be treated as valuable without the government around to enforce its fiat? My impression in childhood was that money belonged to the government, was inextricably bound to the government, and we, the citizens of the government, were just using the money "on loan" so to speak. This impression came not only from the look of the money itself, but from American history, as children's cartoons had communicated it to me. (One Scooby Doo episode ends with the hidden "treasure" turning out to be a case full of hoarded and now worthless Confederate dollars.)
A Brief Monetary History of Gilligan's Island
In early episodes, we see Mr. Howell hiring various services from other castaways. We eventually learn he's been writing checks on a mainland (and therefore inaccessible) bank. This works while the group consider their condition temporary, but the checks are quickly devalued and eliminated when the castaways begin to prepare for the possibility of an indefinite stay on the island.
In Episode 9, "The Big Gold Strike," Gilligan and Mr. Howell find a gold mine on the island, which Howell convinces Gilligan to keep secret from the others. By the time everyone learns about the mine, Howell has already taken the lion's share of the most easily accessible gold. He'd like to hoard it for himself, but the other castaways begin charging him for their goods and services. Soon everyone has a small fortune in gold, which they all try to smuggle aboard a tiny escape raft. Their collected wealth, of course, ends up at the bottom of the lagoon.
In later episodes, monetary exchange takes place in US paper currency. Was it impossible to recover the gold from the lagoon? Perhaps the writers found it more convenient to deal in the money the television viewers themselves were most familiar with. We might dismiss this as economic naivete on the part of the writers, but recent history provides evidence that fiat paper can, in fact, outlive its government. Not only that, but post-fiat money -- dead government currency -- can out-compete American greenbacks!
Undead Money
After the invasion of Iraq, there was no more central bank printing dinars and no more Iraqi government to put the fiat behind its fiat currency. The American military started handing out US$20 bills and expected the Dinar to fade from existence. Instead, to the chagrin of the occupation force, the Dinar's value doubled against the Dollar in two weeks. Statues of Saddam Hussein were being toppled, but his face was still on the preferred currency, and gaining in popularity. Some saw this as patriotism: a silent protest by the occupied population against the invading force. But we need only look further north, to the Kurd-controlled areas, to find a more economic explanation.
After the first Gulf War, Iraq changed its currency from the so-called Swiss Dinar to the more recent Saddam Dinar. When a government changes its fiat currency, it announces a transition period during which the old bills can be brought in and exchanged for the new. After the window closes, the old notes are declared worthless.
To no one's surprise, the rebel Kurds did not visit the Iraqi government to make such an exchange. They just kept using the old money. It was familiar, hard to counterfeit, and in its post-fiat status, it was no longer inflationary: that is to say, the relatively fixed supply of notes made the currency a better store of value than the new Saddam dinars being printed (and printed and printed) further south.
The Swiss Dinar may have been the first successful post-fiat money.
For a brief period after the invasion -- the time it took the Occupation Authority to reestablish an Iraqi central bank and start printing new dinars -- the old Saddam dinars joined the older Swiss dinars in their post-fiat status. And lo and behold, Saddam's dead dinars rose in value compared to the inflationary dollars of the occupation force.
But how can this be? A money backed only by the force of the State is backed by literally nothing in the absence of that state. And yet the dinars continued to change hands.
By the end of the year, however, the occupation government was printing new dinars, at first with Saddam still on them (for familiarity), then transitioning into something that resembled the Swiss Dinar (to promote confidence). The brief, unplanned experiment in post-fiat monetary theory was over, but the results were unambiguous: a stable money, even a completely unbacked currency, beats out inflationary government paper in both value and marketability.
While it may seem that Gilligan's fellow castaways would reject Howell's dollars as worthless, the case of the Saddam Dinar (and the Swiss Dinar before it) offers evidence in favor of "worthless paper."
For an understanding of the afterlife of government currency, we need briefly to review the history and theory of money itself.
Direct & Indirect Exchange
Money arises naturally out of barter. This isn't just a historical fact but was theoretically proven by Ludwig von Mises in his Theory of Money and Credit: money can only have developed from barter.
Imagine Gilligan's Island without the Howells and their paper dollars. Without money, commodities exchange directly: coconuts for fish, fish for bamboo, etc. But even with barter, some commodities are more "marketable" than others. Perhaps one of the castaways might eventually buy one of the Professor's books, but they will more often purchase Mary Ann's coconut cream pies -- or the coconuts themselves. Coconuts are more marketable than books.
Over time, the commodity that is most marketable becomes popular for indirect exchange: the Skipper trades his fish for Ginger's decorative shells, not because he wants shells, but because he knows he can trade them for Gilligan's coconuts. The price of a commodity is its exchange ratio for the most marketable good, e.g., 12 shells per coconut. The value of the shell money is based on the goods it traded for yesterday -- since we can't know what prices will be today. Right now, the Skipper is willing to trade one of his fish for two coconuts, and he knows that Gilligan was recently willing to trade his coconuts for a dozen shells each, therefore the Skipper wants to price his fish at two-dozen shells each: enough to buy two coconuts. Prices can change from day to day, but today's new prices will be based on the prices of other things yesterday.
Government Paper
Exchanges that started in barter evolve toward a common money currency -- decorative shells, in this example (and also in the more historical examples of trade among coastal Africans and North American Indians). Now suppose the Professor found the use of shells to be primitive and irrational -- "a barbarous relic!"
The Professor, having successfully invented many new tools, decides to invent a more rational money. He finds a way to preserve palm leaves and mark them with denominations. The denominations do not represent a claim for a certain number of shells. The numbers refer only to each other and to nothing else, no other commodity. If they have value, it is only because the Professor says they have value.
Would anyone use the Professor's new money?
Any new commodity can come onto the market, but its price will be newly negotiable and its marketability (how many people will trade their goods for it) will be as-yet undetermined. This would be the status of the Professor's new "currency." Its marketability, and therefore its value (as money), would be unknown. Money is, by definition, the most marketable good: that thing which people will most readily accept in trade will also be that thing that fosters indirect exchange. Even if the others wanted to acquire preserved palm leaves, the leaves could not possibly become the most marketable commodity overnight and could therefore not start out as money. If the Professor's leaves become money, it will be through the same barter-based process that made the decorative shells into money. (Notice, however, that if this were to happen, the unit of value would be the physical leaf and not the arbitrary denomination marked on the leaf. There's no reason a bartered leaf marked "1,000" should trade for ten times as much as a bartered leaf marked "100.")
Does this make fiat money impossible? Obviously not, or we wouldn't be using it now, but it does mean that it has to evolve slowly and in discrete stages. Murray Rothbard recounts the process in his book, What Has Government Done to Our Money? At each stage in the transition, from barter to pure commodity money to monopoly coinage to demand deposits to fractionally-backed bank notes to completely unbacked government fiat, the earliest value of the new incarnation is based on the latest value of the older form of money. Today's new money requires yesterday's prices.
Over centuries, governments have taken over money from the market, and in the 20th century, most currencies became unbacked by anything other than the force of the State. But, as we see in the case of post-war Iraq, the fiat history of a currency can serve as the starting point for its post-fiat valuations. The Saddam Dinar doubled its value (measured against the Dollar) in only two weeks, but it couldn't have gotten started without its previous, albeit inflationary and unstable, exchange value. At that point, astonishing as it may seem, no government was necessary to maintain the value of the money. The market can reclaim money from government.
Why did the unbacked paper do better than the US Dollar? Because the quantity of dinars was relatively fixed, while the supply of dollars grew. The law of supply and demand tells us that, all else being equal, a rise in the supply of a thing will lower the price of that thing. The thing, in this case, is the Dollar itself; its "price" is its buying power, which the Iraqis watched erode drastically within days.
This is why the castaways value Thurston Howell's paper dollars: because whatever absurd amount he may have brought with him for "a three-hour tour," that amount is now fixed. Dollars are the most stable currency available on Gilligan's Island, and the government has nothing to do with it. Or rather: the absence of government has everything to do with it. If people are allowed to pick their own preferred money, they will pick whatever holds its value most reliably.
What About Gold?
It would be tempting to see the post-fiat currencies as second-best options, valuable only in the absence of true commodity money, such as gold. But we have to avoid the fallacy of inherent value: gold became the universal money not just through its inherent "money-like virtues" but because, over the centuries, its supply became fairly stable. Platinum, for instance, has all the apparent virtues of gold (and may well exceed gold in at least one virtue: the transportable value-per-unit-weight) but because it is being actively and productively mined, its supply (and therefore its exchange value) is unstable -- for now. Someday, however, if the platinum supply levels off, we gold bugs might jump ship for the higher-valued metal.
So would hard money -- "real money" -- be better for the island economy than the paper dollars Thurston Howell brought with him? Should the castaways have recovered the gold from the lagoon and used it instead of Howell's paper?
Actually, there is reason to believe that the post-fiat dollars of Thurston Howell III would make better money than island gold.
Remember that Howell has already extracted the easiest gold before the other castaways learn of the mine. So what do the others do? They begin charging Howell higher prices for their goods and services. He's free to decline such exchanges, of course, but the pampered millionaire can't live comfortably without help from those around him -- and their help is now very expensive.
Yes, it's just a dumb TV show, but in this case we see the laws of economics accurately portrayed: once the castaways realize they're marooned indefinitely, their economic thinking focuses on the limited resources of the island. As Mises claimed, any fixed amount of money is the correct amount of money for a given economy. Prices will adjust. If the supply of gold money is high, and the available goods and services are few, then prices will be very high in terms of gold. And in this context, the gold money supply isn't fixed: the mine is still there, with who knows how much more gold yet to be extracted. Under an island gold standard, the supply of money might increase at any time, and anticipation of that fact will drive current prices still higher. The money ends up heavier than the goods it trades for.
The government paper in Howell's suitcases, on the other hand, is easy to transport, hard to counterfeit, lighter than gold, and whatever amount of it the millionaire managed to bring with him is the amount there's going to be for a while.
On this isolated island, and in this isolated context, paper beats gold.
Conclusion
None of this is to suggest economic sophistication on the part of the show's creators or writing staff. But Gilligan's Island Economics can provide useful thought experiments for the same reasons Robinson Crusoe Economics has served as a staple of classical and Austrian School economics texts.
One thing Gilligan has, which Crusoe doesn't, is a shared culture with the others on the island. If Robinson Crusoe had been shipwrecked with a chest full of British banknotes, they wouldn't have done him any good. Friday would be more likely to trade for shells or gold than he would for the strange paper.
But on Gilligan's Island (and in the Kurdish rebel territories, and briefly in Baghdad), people who are already used to making their exchanges in slips of unbacked paper can continue to do so profitably without the hand of government. The invisible hand of the market serves them better -- even when dealing in government paper.
------
B.K. Marcus is a freelance writer in Charlottesville, Virginia. His website is www.bkmarcus.com. goldbug@bkMarcus.com. Comment on the blog.
by B.K. Marcus
[Posted August 31, 2004]
Gilligan's Island is now out on DVD, reawakening the unanswered questions of childhood: why does the Skipper let Gilligan help with anything when he knows he'll just screw it up? Why did the movie star take a day cruise in an evening gown? Why did two of the richest people in the world board a dinky boat with the hoi polloi instead of leasing a private yacht? And why do any of the other stranded castaways treat the millionaire's government money as valuable while stuck on an island where no such government can enforce its value?
Because it's just a dumb TV show.
But that last question stuck with me. Would fiat dollars be treated as valuable without the government around to enforce its fiat? My impression in childhood was that money belonged to the government, was inextricably bound to the government, and we, the citizens of the government, were just using the money "on loan" so to speak. This impression came not only from the look of the money itself, but from American history, as children's cartoons had communicated it to me. (One Scooby Doo episode ends with the hidden "treasure" turning out to be a case full of hoarded and now worthless Confederate dollars.)
A Brief Monetary History of Gilligan's Island
In early episodes, we see Mr. Howell hiring various services from other castaways. We eventually learn he's been writing checks on a mainland (and therefore inaccessible) bank. This works while the group consider their condition temporary, but the checks are quickly devalued and eliminated when the castaways begin to prepare for the possibility of an indefinite stay on the island.
In Episode 9, "The Big Gold Strike," Gilligan and Mr. Howell find a gold mine on the island, which Howell convinces Gilligan to keep secret from the others. By the time everyone learns about the mine, Howell has already taken the lion's share of the most easily accessible gold. He'd like to hoard it for himself, but the other castaways begin charging him for their goods and services. Soon everyone has a small fortune in gold, which they all try to smuggle aboard a tiny escape raft. Their collected wealth, of course, ends up at the bottom of the lagoon.
In later episodes, monetary exchange takes place in US paper currency. Was it impossible to recover the gold from the lagoon? Perhaps the writers found it more convenient to deal in the money the television viewers themselves were most familiar with. We might dismiss this as economic naivete on the part of the writers, but recent history provides evidence that fiat paper can, in fact, outlive its government. Not only that, but post-fiat money -- dead government currency -- can out-compete American greenbacks!
Undead Money
After the invasion of Iraq, there was no more central bank printing dinars and no more Iraqi government to put the fiat behind its fiat currency. The American military started handing out US$20 bills and expected the Dinar to fade from existence. Instead, to the chagrin of the occupation force, the Dinar's value doubled against the Dollar in two weeks. Statues of Saddam Hussein were being toppled, but his face was still on the preferred currency, and gaining in popularity. Some saw this as patriotism: a silent protest by the occupied population against the invading force. But we need only look further north, to the Kurd-controlled areas, to find a more economic explanation.
After the first Gulf War, Iraq changed its currency from the so-called Swiss Dinar to the more recent Saddam Dinar. When a government changes its fiat currency, it announces a transition period during which the old bills can be brought in and exchanged for the new. After the window closes, the old notes are declared worthless.
To no one's surprise, the rebel Kurds did not visit the Iraqi government to make such an exchange. They just kept using the old money. It was familiar, hard to counterfeit, and in its post-fiat status, it was no longer inflationary: that is to say, the relatively fixed supply of notes made the currency a better store of value than the new Saddam dinars being printed (and printed and printed) further south.
The Swiss Dinar may have been the first successful post-fiat money.
For a brief period after the invasion -- the time it took the Occupation Authority to reestablish an Iraqi central bank and start printing new dinars -- the old Saddam dinars joined the older Swiss dinars in their post-fiat status. And lo and behold, Saddam's dead dinars rose in value compared to the inflationary dollars of the occupation force.
But how can this be? A money backed only by the force of the State is backed by literally nothing in the absence of that state. And yet the dinars continued to change hands.
By the end of the year, however, the occupation government was printing new dinars, at first with Saddam still on them (for familiarity), then transitioning into something that resembled the Swiss Dinar (to promote confidence). The brief, unplanned experiment in post-fiat monetary theory was over, but the results were unambiguous: a stable money, even a completely unbacked currency, beats out inflationary government paper in both value and marketability.
While it may seem that Gilligan's fellow castaways would reject Howell's dollars as worthless, the case of the Saddam Dinar (and the Swiss Dinar before it) offers evidence in favor of "worthless paper."
For an understanding of the afterlife of government currency, we need briefly to review the history and theory of money itself.
Direct & Indirect Exchange
Money arises naturally out of barter. This isn't just a historical fact but was theoretically proven by Ludwig von Mises in his Theory of Money and Credit: money can only have developed from barter.
Imagine Gilligan's Island without the Howells and their paper dollars. Without money, commodities exchange directly: coconuts for fish, fish for bamboo, etc. But even with barter, some commodities are more "marketable" than others. Perhaps one of the castaways might eventually buy one of the Professor's books, but they will more often purchase Mary Ann's coconut cream pies -- or the coconuts themselves. Coconuts are more marketable than books.
Over time, the commodity that is most marketable becomes popular for indirect exchange: the Skipper trades his fish for Ginger's decorative shells, not because he wants shells, but because he knows he can trade them for Gilligan's coconuts. The price of a commodity is its exchange ratio for the most marketable good, e.g., 12 shells per coconut. The value of the shell money is based on the goods it traded for yesterday -- since we can't know what prices will be today. Right now, the Skipper is willing to trade one of his fish for two coconuts, and he knows that Gilligan was recently willing to trade his coconuts for a dozen shells each, therefore the Skipper wants to price his fish at two-dozen shells each: enough to buy two coconuts. Prices can change from day to day, but today's new prices will be based on the prices of other things yesterday.
Government Paper
Exchanges that started in barter evolve toward a common money currency -- decorative shells, in this example (and also in the more historical examples of trade among coastal Africans and North American Indians). Now suppose the Professor found the use of shells to be primitive and irrational -- "a barbarous relic!"
The Professor, having successfully invented many new tools, decides to invent a more rational money. He finds a way to preserve palm leaves and mark them with denominations. The denominations do not represent a claim for a certain number of shells. The numbers refer only to each other and to nothing else, no other commodity. If they have value, it is only because the Professor says they have value.
Would anyone use the Professor's new money?
Any new commodity can come onto the market, but its price will be newly negotiable and its marketability (how many people will trade their goods for it) will be as-yet undetermined. This would be the status of the Professor's new "currency." Its marketability, and therefore its value (as money), would be unknown. Money is, by definition, the most marketable good: that thing which people will most readily accept in trade will also be that thing that fosters indirect exchange. Even if the others wanted to acquire preserved palm leaves, the leaves could not possibly become the most marketable commodity overnight and could therefore not start out as money. If the Professor's leaves become money, it will be through the same barter-based process that made the decorative shells into money. (Notice, however, that if this were to happen, the unit of value would be the physical leaf and not the arbitrary denomination marked on the leaf. There's no reason a bartered leaf marked "1,000" should trade for ten times as much as a bartered leaf marked "100.")
Does this make fiat money impossible? Obviously not, or we wouldn't be using it now, but it does mean that it has to evolve slowly and in discrete stages. Murray Rothbard recounts the process in his book, What Has Government Done to Our Money? At each stage in the transition, from barter to pure commodity money to monopoly coinage to demand deposits to fractionally-backed bank notes to completely unbacked government fiat, the earliest value of the new incarnation is based on the latest value of the older form of money. Today's new money requires yesterday's prices.
Over centuries, governments have taken over money from the market, and in the 20th century, most currencies became unbacked by anything other than the force of the State. But, as we see in the case of post-war Iraq, the fiat history of a currency can serve as the starting point for its post-fiat valuations. The Saddam Dinar doubled its value (measured against the Dollar) in only two weeks, but it couldn't have gotten started without its previous, albeit inflationary and unstable, exchange value. At that point, astonishing as it may seem, no government was necessary to maintain the value of the money. The market can reclaim money from government.
Why did the unbacked paper do better than the US Dollar? Because the quantity of dinars was relatively fixed, while the supply of dollars grew. The law of supply and demand tells us that, all else being equal, a rise in the supply of a thing will lower the price of that thing. The thing, in this case, is the Dollar itself; its "price" is its buying power, which the Iraqis watched erode drastically within days.
This is why the castaways value Thurston Howell's paper dollars: because whatever absurd amount he may have brought with him for "a three-hour tour," that amount is now fixed. Dollars are the most stable currency available on Gilligan's Island, and the government has nothing to do with it. Or rather: the absence of government has everything to do with it. If people are allowed to pick their own preferred money, they will pick whatever holds its value most reliably.
What About Gold?
It would be tempting to see the post-fiat currencies as second-best options, valuable only in the absence of true commodity money, such as gold. But we have to avoid the fallacy of inherent value: gold became the universal money not just through its inherent "money-like virtues" but because, over the centuries, its supply became fairly stable. Platinum, for instance, has all the apparent virtues of gold (and may well exceed gold in at least one virtue: the transportable value-per-unit-weight) but because it is being actively and productively mined, its supply (and therefore its exchange value) is unstable -- for now. Someday, however, if the platinum supply levels off, we gold bugs might jump ship for the higher-valued metal.
So would hard money -- "real money" -- be better for the island economy than the paper dollars Thurston Howell brought with him? Should the castaways have recovered the gold from the lagoon and used it instead of Howell's paper?
Actually, there is reason to believe that the post-fiat dollars of Thurston Howell III would make better money than island gold.
Remember that Howell has already extracted the easiest gold before the other castaways learn of the mine. So what do the others do? They begin charging Howell higher prices for their goods and services. He's free to decline such exchanges, of course, but the pampered millionaire can't live comfortably without help from those around him -- and their help is now very expensive.
Yes, it's just a dumb TV show, but in this case we see the laws of economics accurately portrayed: once the castaways realize they're marooned indefinitely, their economic thinking focuses on the limited resources of the island. As Mises claimed, any fixed amount of money is the correct amount of money for a given economy. Prices will adjust. If the supply of gold money is high, and the available goods and services are few, then prices will be very high in terms of gold. And in this context, the gold money supply isn't fixed: the mine is still there, with who knows how much more gold yet to be extracted. Under an island gold standard, the supply of money might increase at any time, and anticipation of that fact will drive current prices still higher. The money ends up heavier than the goods it trades for.
The government paper in Howell's suitcases, on the other hand, is easy to transport, hard to counterfeit, lighter than gold, and whatever amount of it the millionaire managed to bring with him is the amount there's going to be for a while.
On this isolated island, and in this isolated context, paper beats gold.
Conclusion
None of this is to suggest economic sophistication on the part of the show's creators or writing staff. But Gilligan's Island Economics can provide useful thought experiments for the same reasons Robinson Crusoe Economics has served as a staple of classical and Austrian School economics texts.
One thing Gilligan has, which Crusoe doesn't, is a shared culture with the others on the island. If Robinson Crusoe had been shipwrecked with a chest full of British banknotes, they wouldn't have done him any good. Friday would be more likely to trade for shells or gold than he would for the strange paper.
But on Gilligan's Island (and in the Kurdish rebel territories, and briefly in Baghdad), people who are already used to making their exchanges in slips of unbacked paper can continue to do so profitably without the hand of government. The invisible hand of the market serves them better -- even when dealing in government paper.
------
B.K. Marcus is a freelance writer in Charlottesville, Virginia. His website is www.bkmarcus.com. goldbug@bkMarcus.com. Comment on the blog.
Wednesday, October 13, 2004
Leading economists have a message for America: “John Kerry favors economic policies that, if implemented, would lead to bigger and more intrusive government and a lower standard of living for the American people.”
That was the conclusion released in a statement Wednesday by 368 economists, including six Nobel laureates: Gary Becker, James Buchanan, Milton Friedman, Robert Lucas, Robert Mundell, and — the winner of this year’s Nobel Prize in Economics — Edward C. Prescott. The economists warned that Sen. Kerry’s policies “would, over time, inhibit capital formation, depress productivity growth, and make the United States less competitive internationally. The end result would be lower U.S. employment and real wage growth.”
Consider Kerry’s spending and tax proposals. Kerry claims he wants to balance the federal budget, but as the Washington Post pointed out last August, “Sen. John F. Kerry’s pledge to reduce record federal budget deficits is colliding with an obstacle that may be growing higher by the week: his own campaign commitments.” In fact, Kerry’s spending proposals would add an estimated $226 billion annually to federal spending. To put this in perspective, $226 billion is roughly equal to the gross domestic products of Greece or Sweden.
Kerry’s oft-repeated budget solution is to raise taxes on “families making over $200,000 on income earned above $200,000 to their levels under President Clinton.” This proposal would generate hundreds-of-billions of dollars over the next decade for the Treasury’s coffers. Kerry’s other proposed tax increases would generate billions more. Yet, these tax increases would offset only a fraction of Kerry’s new spending.
For instance, Senator Kerry’s government-run health insurance spending plan would by itself require a tax increase of more than $1 trillion. Two independent studies, one by the Lewin Group and another by the American Enterprise Institute, concluded that Kerry’s health insurance proposal would cost more than $1 trillion over the next 10 years. And that’s just one of Kerry’s spending proposals. To close the funding gap between all of his spending and tax promises, Kerry would have to raise taxes by an average of $1,431 for everyone who files an income-tax return.
The stark disconnect between Kerry’s spending and tax proposals is what prompted 368 leading economists to conclude, “Kerry’s stated desire to balance the budget and to boost federal spending substantially would almost certainly require far higher and broader tax increases than he has proposed.” And given Kerry’s voting record in the Senate — he has cast 98 votes for tax increases totaling more than $2.3 trillion throughout his legislative career — that is no idle threat.
It is no secret that John Kerry wants America’s foreign policy to be more like that of Germany and France. But perhaps even more disturbing, he has demonstrated that he wants to emulate their failed tax-and-spend economic policies, too. Over time, the consequences could be devastating. Consider the impact those policies have had on Europe. Germany and France once enjoyed standards of living comparable to those of the United States. Today, U.S. per capita GDP is 38 percent higher than that of Germany and 43 percent higher than that of France. Indeed, as economist Bruce Bartlett recently pointed out, “On average, Europeans only live about as well as those in the poorest American state, Mississippi.”
The 368 economists only briefly touched upon Kerry’s trade policies. As it happens, there is not much upon which to comment. Kerry has expressed a general reluctance to reduce trade barriers, and he has promised, if elected, to “review existing trade agreements.” His applause line is that he vows not to “sign any new trade agreements until the review is complete and its recommendations [are] put in place.” According to the 368 economists, “That's a prescription for political gridlock. Given the widespread benefits of unfettered trade, Kerry’s trade policies would harm U.S. producers and consumers alike.”
Finally, we have all heard John Kerry denigrate the present rate of job creation. Yet, according to latest Bureau of Labor Statistics employment report, 1.9 million jobs have been created since August 2003. And at 5.4 percent, the unemployment rate is below the average unemployment rates of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s.
We have also heard Kerry’s solemn vow to create 10 million new jobs during his first term as president. But you probably have not heard that the U.S. economy is likely to create about that many jobs over the next four years under current policy.
During the first nine months of 2004 — while Kerry was criticizing the pace of employment growth — payroll employment grew an average of more than 170,000 jobs a month. At that rate, the next administration would preside over the creation of roughly 8.2 million net new jobs. And yet, as Martin Sullivan pointed out in Tax Notes, Kerry has not presented one objective analysis to support his claim that his policies would create 1 million more jobs, much less 10 million more.
John Kerry has adopted the Walter Mondale approach to economics — increase taxes. Even advocates of Keynesian economics would not recommend raising taxes in the early stages of an economic recovery. Unlike Mondale, however, Kerry will wait until after the election to reveal all of the tax increases that will be required to pay for his government spending promises. Three hundred and sixty eight economists hope American voters will heed their warnings before it is too late.
— J. Edward Carter is an economist in Washington, D.C. Cesar V. Conda, formerly assistant for domestic policy to Vice President Dick Cheney, is a senior fellow at FreedomWorks in Washington, D.C.
That was the conclusion released in a statement Wednesday by 368 economists, including six Nobel laureates: Gary Becker, James Buchanan, Milton Friedman, Robert Lucas, Robert Mundell, and — the winner of this year’s Nobel Prize in Economics — Edward C. Prescott. The economists warned that Sen. Kerry’s policies “would, over time, inhibit capital formation, depress productivity growth, and make the United States less competitive internationally. The end result would be lower U.S. employment and real wage growth.”
Consider Kerry’s spending and tax proposals. Kerry claims he wants to balance the federal budget, but as the Washington Post pointed out last August, “Sen. John F. Kerry’s pledge to reduce record federal budget deficits is colliding with an obstacle that may be growing higher by the week: his own campaign commitments.” In fact, Kerry’s spending proposals would add an estimated $226 billion annually to federal spending. To put this in perspective, $226 billion is roughly equal to the gross domestic products of Greece or Sweden.
Kerry’s oft-repeated budget solution is to raise taxes on “families making over $200,000 on income earned above $200,000 to their levels under President Clinton.” This proposal would generate hundreds-of-billions of dollars over the next decade for the Treasury’s coffers. Kerry’s other proposed tax increases would generate billions more. Yet, these tax increases would offset only a fraction of Kerry’s new spending.
For instance, Senator Kerry’s government-run health insurance spending plan would by itself require a tax increase of more than $1 trillion. Two independent studies, one by the Lewin Group and another by the American Enterprise Institute, concluded that Kerry’s health insurance proposal would cost more than $1 trillion over the next 10 years. And that’s just one of Kerry’s spending proposals. To close the funding gap between all of his spending and tax promises, Kerry would have to raise taxes by an average of $1,431 for everyone who files an income-tax return.
The stark disconnect between Kerry’s spending and tax proposals is what prompted 368 leading economists to conclude, “Kerry’s stated desire to balance the budget and to boost federal spending substantially would almost certainly require far higher and broader tax increases than he has proposed.” And given Kerry’s voting record in the Senate — he has cast 98 votes for tax increases totaling more than $2.3 trillion throughout his legislative career — that is no idle threat.
It is no secret that John Kerry wants America’s foreign policy to be more like that of Germany and France. But perhaps even more disturbing, he has demonstrated that he wants to emulate their failed tax-and-spend economic policies, too. Over time, the consequences could be devastating. Consider the impact those policies have had on Europe. Germany and France once enjoyed standards of living comparable to those of the United States. Today, U.S. per capita GDP is 38 percent higher than that of Germany and 43 percent higher than that of France. Indeed, as economist Bruce Bartlett recently pointed out, “On average, Europeans only live about as well as those in the poorest American state, Mississippi.”
The 368 economists only briefly touched upon Kerry’s trade policies. As it happens, there is not much upon which to comment. Kerry has expressed a general reluctance to reduce trade barriers, and he has promised, if elected, to “review existing trade agreements.” His applause line is that he vows not to “sign any new trade agreements until the review is complete and its recommendations [are] put in place.” According to the 368 economists, “That's a prescription for political gridlock. Given the widespread benefits of unfettered trade, Kerry’s trade policies would harm U.S. producers and consumers alike.”
Finally, we have all heard John Kerry denigrate the present rate of job creation. Yet, according to latest Bureau of Labor Statistics employment report, 1.9 million jobs have been created since August 2003. And at 5.4 percent, the unemployment rate is below the average unemployment rates of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s.
We have also heard Kerry’s solemn vow to create 10 million new jobs during his first term as president. But you probably have not heard that the U.S. economy is likely to create about that many jobs over the next four years under current policy.
During the first nine months of 2004 — while Kerry was criticizing the pace of employment growth — payroll employment grew an average of more than 170,000 jobs a month. At that rate, the next administration would preside over the creation of roughly 8.2 million net new jobs. And yet, as Martin Sullivan pointed out in Tax Notes, Kerry has not presented one objective analysis to support his claim that his policies would create 1 million more jobs, much less 10 million more.
John Kerry has adopted the Walter Mondale approach to economics — increase taxes. Even advocates of Keynesian economics would not recommend raising taxes in the early stages of an economic recovery. Unlike Mondale, however, Kerry will wait until after the election to reveal all of the tax increases that will be required to pay for his government spending promises. Three hundred and sixty eight economists hope American voters will heed their warnings before it is too late.
— J. Edward Carter is an economist in Washington, D.C. Cesar V. Conda, formerly assistant for domestic policy to Vice President Dick Cheney, is a senior fellow at FreedomWorks in Washington, D.C.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)