Monthly Archives: July 2009

“The Free Market In Action”

Kevin Drum observes the lobbying fight between merchants and credit card companies. Card companies charge fees to merchants for the ability to accept cards with the help of a Merchant Identification Number and other methods, but if competition makes them unable to fully pass those fees along, they end up eating out of profit margins. So merchants want to get Congress to slap restrictions and the card companies to reduce fees.

So what does Kevin Drum do? He champions the “free” market! (Bold added, italics original.)

In fact, I’d go further: let’s kill two birds with one stone and just abolish interchange fees altogether. Card companies would then be forced to charge higher annual fees to credit card users – fees that (a) would fall solely on the people actually using credit cards and (b) would make it obvious just how much credit cards actually cost. That strikes me as an excellent idea. Credit cards aren’t a free lunch, and there’s no reason that consumers should be fooled into thinking they are.

And if that means consumers end up using credit cards less – well, what’s wrong with that? It’s the free market in action.

So right now we have a position of freedom: credit card companies compete with each other on low annual fees and other benefits. They can afford to do this by charging merchants interchange fees, who must weigh the costs of the fees with the potential lost business by not accepting cards. It’s not a nice system for the merchants. Let’s face it, everyone and their grandma has a credit card (that’s right, even those in retirement can’t resist a credit card), but merchants can walk away from the cards if they want (and some do so, annoyingly IMHO).

So, merchants want to run to Congress to slap regulations on the companies. And Kevin Drum wants to go one step farther and — with the force of government — remove the fees entirely.

He then suggests that when the government has FORCED the new business model upon merchants and card companies, changes in behavior of card users are “the free market in action.”

It is a market in action, Mr. Drum, but it’s certainly not a free one.

This Day in History

While July 20, 2009 marks the 40th anniversary of arguably man’s greatest achievement (landing on the moon), this day also marks yet another important day in history: the 65th anniversary of the nearly successful attempted assassination of Adolf Hitler and overthrow of the Third Reich (a.k.a Operation Valkyrie) from individuals within the German Government.

An idealistic young Catholic aristocrat, Colonel Claus von Staufenberg was assigned the key role. The key conspirators were Admiral Wilhelm Canaris (head of the Abwehr), Carl Goerdeler, Julius Leber, Ulrich Hassell, Hans Oster (Admiral Canaris’ deputy), Henning von Tresckow, Fabin Schlabrendorff, Peter von Wartenburg, Ludwig Beck, and Erwin von Witzleben. As a result of the need for secrecy, many individuals were not directly involved in the plot, but were willing to accept Hitler’s removal as demonstrated by the fact that they did not report clearly treasonous conversations. Stauffenberg was promoted to Colonel and appointed Chief of Staff to Home Army Commander General Friedrich Fromm (June 1944). This was the posuition that gave him direct access to Hitler’s briefing sessions. The overall plot was much more involved including a range of Wehrmacht officers including General Erwin Rommel. The attemp became known as the July Bomb Plot. The plan was to assasinate the key NAZI leaders (Adolf Hitler, Hermann Goering and Heinrich Himmler ), then use loyal troops to seize control of Berlin and the major government buildings. This would include the important communication facilities in Berlin: telephone and signal centers and radio broadcasting stations. The key target of course was the Führer himself. Several attempts were made on Hitler’s life. At least six attempts had to be aborted. Stauffenberg decided he could kill Hitler during a military conference at the Führer Wolf’s Lair (field headquarters) in northern Poland (July 20, 1944). Stauffenberg was there as a representative of the Home Army. The idea was to kill Göring and Himmler with the same bomb. After Hitler was dead, the Home Army would seize cintrol of Berlin and then Germany. Göring and Himmler were not at the conference. Despite orders to abort the bombing, Staufenberg decided to go ahead. Stauffenberg had never previously met Hitler. He carried the bomb in a briefcase and placed it on the floor next to where Hitler was standing. He then left to make a pre-arranged telephone call. The bomb exploded and Staufenberg thought he had suceeded. Hitler had, however, moved the brirf case to the other side of a oak beam supporting the briefing table. Four men were killed. Hitler was badly shaken and his right arm injured, but he was not killed. After Hitler’s assasintion, Ludwig Beck, Erwin von Witzleben and Erich Fromm were to take command of the Wehrmacht. This effort was abandoned when it became clear that Hitler had survived.

While it is unfortunate that the operation failed and would have saved countless lives by bringing the European theater of WWII to an end nine months sooner, these brave conspirators who paid with their lives was proof to the world that the German people were not all evil and not all Germans supported the Third Reich. This also serves as a reminder that individuals must fight for their country and their liberty by opposing their government (as tarran so eloquently points out, government is not society). These conspirators who were at first considered “traitors” would later be revered by the German people as great defenders of their beloved country.

Breaking News: Results Of Honduran Referendum!

As reported (circumspect) by QandO:

One of the district attorneys that participated in the operation that took place this Friday showed reporters an official voting result from the Technical Institute Luis Bogran, of Tegucigalpa, in which the specific number of people that participated in table 345, where there were 550 ballots, 450 of which were votes in favor of Zelaya’s proposal and 30 were against, in addition to 20 blank ballots and 30 ballots, which were nullified.

That’s a very complete report of the election, and contains a wealth of details about the results that would be a credit to the authorities in charge of any election.

Of course, it would be even more impressive if the referendum had actually taken place.

There was no referendum. It was aborted by the legal, constitutional removal of Mr. Zelaya from power.

And yet, in the presidential palace’s computer, Mr. Zelaya apparently had a complete, certified result of an election that never took place.

Between real life and all the other important things worth posting about, I’ve been off the Honduras deal. QandO has been doing an excellent job on this one, so I recommend heading over there. That said, I’m only partially jumping onto this bandwagon… This is still a story in its infancy, and I’ve been burned enough to know that “reports” don’t always equal “evidence”.

But that being said, this does seem to fit the playbook. Such a thing being true would confirm my priors. So even if I’m not absolutely jumping cojones-deep into believing that this actually happened, I really want to see the follow-up investigation to see if it can be proved.

Ain’t Nobody’s Business If You Do

THIS BOOK IS BASED on a single idea: You should be allowed to do whatever you want with your own person and property, as long as you don’t physically harm the person or property of a nonconsenting other.

Thus begins a book that everyone interested in politics should read; Ain’t Nobody’s Business If You Do: The Absurdity of Consensual Crimes in a Free Country by Peter McWilliams. Published in 1998, it is a damning survey of how the United States had become a state composed of “clergymen with billy-clubs”. It analyzes the consequences of punishing so-called victimless crimes from numerous viewpoints, demonstrating that regardless of what you think is the most important organizing principle or purpose of society the investigation, prosecution and punishment of these non-crimes is harmful to society.

This remarkable book is now posted online, and if one can bear to wade through the awful website design (perhaps taking time to look at wix versus wordpress articles would help there), one will find lots of thought-provoking worthwhile commentary, analysis, theory and history.

His final chapter, on how to change the system, while consisting mainly of pie-in-the-sky, ineffective suggestions of working within the system, starts of with an extremely good bit of advice that I urge all our readers to try:

The single most effective form of change is one-on-one interaction with the people you come into contact with day-by-day. The next time someone condemns a consensual activity in your presence, you can ask the simple question, “Well, isn’t that their own business?” Asking this, of course, may be like hitting a beehive with a baseball bat, and it may seem-after the commotion (and emotion) has died down-that attitudes have not changed. If, however, a beehive is hit often enough, the bees move somewhere else. Of course, you don’t have to hit the same hive every time. If all the people who agree that the laws against consensual crimes should be repealed post haste would go around whacking (or at least firmly tapping) every beehive that presented itself, the bees would buzz less often.

I highly recommend this book. Even though I have some pretty fundamental disagreements with some of his proposals, I think that this book is a fine addition to the bookshelf of any advocate of freedom and civilization.

Hat Tip: J.D. Tuccille of Disloyal Opposition.

I am an anarcho-capitalist living just west of Boston Massachussetts. I am married, have two children, and am trying to start my own computer consulting company.
1 3 4 5 6 7 13