Muslims Gone Wild

I've been watching the protests in Egypt with a great deal of fascination. Not half an hour after learning about all of the violence and confusion in the ancient land, I began having a major episode of confusion myself. And I've decided that the Muslim world must be in the middle of an identity crisis, though I'm almost sure they don't see it that way.

Islam has a very basic tenet. It states that free will doesn't exist. There is NO free will for any individual. There is ONLY God's will. It's stated over and over again in the Koran, and Muslims themselves make a point of repeatedly using the phrase “God willing” as a continued reassertion that it's still true. God's will is one of the bricks used in the foundation of Islam. Or I should say, it's THE brick in the foundation of Islam. If one were to remove it, the entire system (notice I did NOT only say “religion”) would need to be reexamined. (More on this in a moment.)

So the illogical problem among the protesters has everything to do with the reason for their protests – the Egyptian leadership – which has been in power for more than 30 years, and a little thing called free will

My epiphany was this: None of the protesters can consider themselves to be truly good Muslims. If there's only God's will, then Hosni Mubarak's governing body must have been willed into power through God's desire – and then kept them there for the last 30 years. So any Muslim protesting against that regime, must also be protesting against God's will. And that would be a bad Muslim. Bad Muslim.

But on the other side of the protesting coin is this: Those same protesters must also believe that Hosni Mubarak has CHOSEN to stay in office, somehow, against God's will, or against the will of the voting public, people who we can simply call a group of individuals. And that implies free will for the individual(s). And that would be a double bad Muslim. Bad Muslim.

The only people left, those who can still consider themselves good Muslims, are the people NOT protesting, since they are the only ones left NOT objecting to God's will. Hmmm... What a conundrum. To protest, or not to protest? That's a HUGE question. Do we question God's will, or do we just question the very foundation of Islam? Or both? Bad Muslim. Baaaaad Muslim.

A moment ago, I stated clearly that Islam is not a “religion.” I don't mean any offense in that statement. I said that specifically, because it's not. It's a moral, philosophical, political, intellectual, ethical, business, educational AND religious system. It's an entire system for living your life, from the time you're born, until the day you die. It's taught as THE way for good, believing Muslims to live their entire lives. It encompasses everything.

So those protests have led me to think that Islam must be having some kind of massive identity crisis. And it's one that is nothing more than the entirety of life for all believing Muslims. Either they believe in something their belief system says specifically is not true. Or their entire system needs to be reexamined – which leads me to a funny statement I remember from years ago.

“If engineers built buildings the way programmers write programs, the first woodpecker to come along would destroy all of civilization.” But with Islam we could say: the first protest to come along would crumble the entire belief system.

I think the first brick has been removed. What follows should be a great deal of self-examination. Will that happen? Somehow, I doubt it.

This Just In

News headline:

"Russian President blames attack on lapses in airport security."

Everyone see the lack of logic in his statement? Head scratchers like that sometimes come at you one right after the other, and unfortunately, also at the speed of light. It's moments like the one above that force me to slow down, read, examine and THINK.

Event Registration Online for Atlas Shrugged: The Making of a Movie

I'm In Love; I'm In Love; I'm In Love

With H.R. 25: Fair Tax Act of 2009

Just last night, I was watching online clips of John Stossel's new show, and came across this. I felt like I was floating on cloud nine. I could hardly believe my ears. I'm totally unacquainted with this fair tax proposal, but, as far as I can tell, it sounds like an idea that has come of age. It benefits the poor, benefits the rich, benefits businesses and actually makes sense. Of course, I can't fathom for one moment that any politician will advocate or even consider anything that's logical or sounds “fair,” but it is nice to fantasize. And that's precisely what this is – fanciful thinking. But wow, what a fantasy. Please, don't wake me up until my dream is over.

It's Not Easy Being Pals

If the name “Buddy” gives you the warm fuzzies, then you're going to like this story. In case you missed this morning's news cycle, a great hero dog story is being reported in the media today. “Buddy,” an obviously loyal German Sheppard and family friend, overcame his fears and led police to the scene of a house fire, tremendously shortening the time more police and fire fighters needed to find the blaze. You can see the video here. According to the officer who was intelligent enough to speak dog and follow up on it, Buddy appeared very agitated, spun, ran ahead and looked back repeatedly. He also disappeared once the officer was on the scene – proving that anyone can overcome their fears given the right motivation. Way to go, Buddy. Once again, I'm very proud to be the leader of my pack.

I'm being a bit lazy by posting this quote. But since I haven't posted in some time, and since I'm about to eat lunch, I wanted to do as little as possible while still giving you a bit of pause. It made me stop – twice. The quote below is from a short book I'm currently reading. I'm just curious to know if you can guess the date this statement was made. It's at the bottom. Try not to peek.

“'There cannot be any doubt that this bureaucratic system is essentially antiliberal, undemocratic, and un-American, that it is contrary to the spirit and to the letter of the Constitution, and that it is a replica of totalitarian methods.... It is imbued with a fanatical hostility to free enterprise and private property. It paralyzes the conduct of business and lowers the productivity of labor. By heedless spending it squanders the nation's wealth. It is inefficient and wasteful. Although it styles what it does (as) planning, it has no definite plans and aims. It lacks unity and uniformity; the various bureaus and agencies work at cross-purposes. The outcome is a disintegration of the whole social apparatus of production and distribution. Poverty and distress are bound to follow.'
This vehement indictment of bureaucracy is, by and large, an adequate although emotional description of present-day trends in American government. But it misses the point as it makes bureaucracy and the bureaucrats responsible for an evolution the causes of which must be sought for elsewhere. Bureaucracy is but a consequence and a symptom of things and changes much more deeply rooted. The characteristic feature of present-day policies is the trend toward a substitution of government control for free enterprise. Powerful political parties and pressure groups are fervently asking for public control of all economic activities, for thorough government planning, and for the nationalization of businesses. They aim at full government control of education and at the socialization of the medical profession. There is no sphere of human activity that they would not be prepared to subordinate to regimentation by the authorities. In their eyes, state control is the panacea for all ills.”

Ludwig von Mises "Bureaucracy" – 1944

9/11 Becomes 1984

News in recent weeks has been disturbing enough to make George Orwell proud. On December 22, writer Alan Reynolds posted a good perspective as to why, according to his story, “Death Panels? Sarah Palin Was Right.” And Yahoo! News posted Friday an article, stating “Mind-reading systems could change air security."

Both of these need a little elaboration.

First, the Reynolds story details how reporters have all been parroting not only what Palin actually said, but how they misconstrued what they thought she said, or what they wanted her to say. And second that, believe it or not, the US government has no choice but to economize through “rationing boards,” an idea detailed in a linked story published in July by the New York Times.

The second headline about mind reading security systems should send a shiver down anyone's spine, and send us to our libraries looking to blow dust from our old sci fi classic. But the story goes on to describe not real mind-reading devices, but rather a high tech camera and TV screen system that flashes very specific images at individuals and gages their reactions. Scarrier still, the company promoting this new product calls itself WeCU. All of it seems logical enough. Some muscle responses, facial expressions and so forth are totally involuntary. The implications for the success of such a new tool are tremendous. But so, unfortunately, is the potential for its abuse. As are the mistakes that will undoubtedly be made in learning how to figure out what is a real positive response vs. a false positive response – something that gets lie detector tests kicked out of the court room all the time.

The next kind of “security” scanner, I'm sure, will be neural MRI in its orientation, and probably also part of a combination of new technologies, which is likely to include the already proposed national ID cards, other scanners and computer databases, etc, etc, etc.

If George Orwell and writer Aldous Huxley actually meant “Fear-filled New World” when they made their comments on the “Brave New World,” then they may have been on to something.

The Nolan Chart Is A Little Off

Not too long ago I was happily surfing the web and found “The World's Shortest Political Quiz.” Only a few minutes later I came across something equally interesting – a chart produced by Libertarian David Nolan. It takes personal and economic freedom and charts them out according to a person's political beliefs.

At first blush, it looks correct. I was quite pleased that someone had plotted out that kind of information. But as I considered its meaning, a glaring problem began to reveal itself.

I think, and I'm sure almost every present day and former communist comrade will agree, that personal and economic freedoms are corollaries so inextricably linked that they deserve to be included on the same axis. You can't have much personal or economic freedom if, as in a communist country, the government supplies you with everything they think you need, and taxes you at a “marginal” tax rate of 100%. So I emailed Jean-Francois Minardi, a Senior Policy Analyst at The Frasier Institute. They sponsor the Economic Freedom of the World project.

He was kind enough to respond right away, and told me that he isn't aware of any chart like the one I was considering. So once my googling was over, and I was convinced that I wouldn't duplicate anyone else's work, I decided to make my own chart.

Here's what I came up with. It includes Dick Armey's flat tax low estimate of diminishing government returns, starting at about 15%. It's important, because he's a former public policymaker, Ph'd Economics Professor and has written several books on the subject. I also included Economist Arthur Laffer's diminishing returns estimate of 40%.

For the record, my own estimate of the pivot point between liberty and socialism was a marginal tax rate of 41%. But there isn't much sense in watering down the chart in small increments, so I've kept my conclusion out of it (I'd rather just take credit for the whole chart).

And the last element is the point at which I think socialism is a certainty. It starts at the confiscation, organization and redistribution of 51% of the GDP of a given economy. I suppose anyone can argue the semantics of what socialism is, isn't, what it represents, and at what point it begins. And there are in fact countries in existence today that have marginal tax rates over 50% and still have democratically elected leaders – like Norway (That's probably not a good example, since they're a constitutional monarchy).

But I did find a large problem in an already existing chart. And it's something that I thought needed more attention. So here's my take on it. Hey, there's no sense in complaining about a problem if you're not willing to offer some kind of solution to fix it. Right?

In case you're wondering... the U.S. corporate tax rate currently tops out as the second highest in the world at 39%, while the federal income tax rate is as high as 35% - depending on your income. And this is only those two taxes. This does not include the sales tax, death tax, state income tax, social security and the myriad other payments you make to government all the time. And I don't need to mention to my readers the bailout programs, the "stimulus" program(s?) or the other very large and very public expansions of government that are being carried out in Washington as I write this.

This post reminds me of a book written in 1963 by Murray Rothbard. He called it: "What Has Government Done To Our Money?". But with the current state of affairs in Washington, I think it's about time for a new book title. How about something like: "What Has Our Government Done To Our Government?"

Just Off The Top Of Your Head

Quickly. Take a look at this picture and tell me your first impression. Does this look “sustainable” to you?



Try to remember, the area with the widest gray column is known as “The Great Depression.” Notice the difference? Hardly a dip. And the white area just after 1940 is the time the WWII effort was running at full force. These pro government monetarists scare me.

The Changing Face Of American Capitalism

Yahoo Finance posted an interesting story yesterday morning, one that describes the reasons former GMAC CEO Alvaro de Molina was forced to step down.

In the news are the details of GMAC's years long financial woes. Molina was in charge of the company for only the last two. But that didn't stop the CEO from having a very clear cut difference of ethical opinion in opposition to GMAC's board of directors.

For anyone who's been following the company's difficulties for even a short time, the memories of bailout monies and other government guarantees are fresh. GMAC received $12.5 billion in bailout funds; had $7.4 billion in loans publicly guaranteed by the FDIC; failed the government's stress tests, and still needs to raise another $11.5 billion to get back on its financial feet. But so far it hasn't been able to raise the necessary money, nor has the company cut its costs enough to aid in its own solvency. Which means... the company is back with hat in hand, ready to once again accept government money to the tune of at least another $5.6 billion in greenbacks.

The essence of the issue is this: the board wants the money; de Molina doesn't. So the board has forced him out for a very specific reason. He refused to accept money that his company didn't earn. He refused to take your tax dollars. How ironic. When we read of one man of good conscience, among all of those others who are so quickly willing to sell out their morals, their ethics and their companies, just to prop themselves up for a little while longer, it's in an article that states “...de Molina steps down.”

Say “goodbye” to the large companies that deserve your business because they provide you with everything you want, need and actually use. And say “hello” to the companies that stay afloat due mostly to their political connections.

Laissez-faire has been dealt some serious blows over the course of these last couple of years. Every part of the stimulus program, and every aspect of the TARP program, has made doubly sure of that. But also know that when good people of conscience are being pushed out of the doors of formerly competitive companies because they still believe in laissez-faire, the death noose has been tied. It's just the changing face of what used to be American capitalism.

A Late, Great Interview

Last night Gaby and I did something we thought was fun, even though we also realized that it probably makes us either serious intellectuals, or nerds – or both. We happily sat in bed with my laptop on a Saturday night and watched a Mike Wallace interview from 1959. It was just him and my favorite author Ayn Rand. The video is so basic that I called it high schoolish. Which, by today's standards, it is. There's no scrolling info at the top or bottom of the screen; the camera jumps and wavers; the CG is primitive, and it's shot in black and white. The sound is even bad. But having said that, it's also totally engrossing. I can't remember ever being so drawn into an interview. His questions are tough; and she answers every, single one of them with the practice and fearlessness I would expect from her caliber of intellect. There are so many people who are, after all these years, still misunderstanding what she had to say, and why. But I'm happy to share it anyway.