Common Errors in Austrian Economics

National debt problem

Paying the national debt would cause deflation, since 40% of the debt goes to central banks as interest payments. Paying the national debt, per se, would not lower average income if each individual proportionally pays his or her income to pay back the debt, since the "value" of money goes up from deflation while paying the debt.

Also, "we" owe no money to pay the debt owed to foreigners. Paying this debt equals collective punishment.

"Adjustment" occurs during a recession

Malinvestment and underinvestment already exist, since the state enforces regulations and taxes that undermine the economy. More generally, if the state exists, then distortion and malinvestment must exist. During a bust, many Misesians view that as "adjustment." "Adjustment" just shifts some malinvestment in one sector to another sector, within the already distorted system. So, in a statist society, one should call the "boom" phase of the business cycle as increased malinvestment, not just malinvestment, since the state always causes malinvestment.

Businesses misled during the "boom" phase

Malinvestment, per se, does not originate from poor business decisions. During the "boom" phase, businesses make sound decisions to invest. Contrary to the Misesian understanding of the business cycle, businesses actually overinvest in long-term assets during the boom phase because it actually profits them.

Inflation causes malinvestment.

Inflation, per se, does not cause increased malinvestment. The lower real interest rates than the "equilibrium" rate causes malinvestment. The lower real interest rates encourage firms to invest in long-term assets at the expense of short-term assets, distorting the "optimal" ratio of long-term assets and short-term assets. Thus, this un-"optimal" equilibrium would result in more opportunity costs for individuals.

Only in the "boom" phase of the cycle, malinvestment occurs. In the "bust" phase, the "adjustment" occurs. The ratio of long-term assets to short-term assets approaches the "optimal" level during the bust. Therefore, the bust phase makes consumers wealthier! Then why do some consumers get poorer in the "bust" phase? The individuals who has a loan during a monetary contraction would not have enough money to pay back to the banks.

So-called: Boom, bust, growth, and recession

The Misesians misnamed the terms such as "boom" and "bust," and "growth" and "recession." Actually the only variables that define the boom and bust phases include violently lowering and increasing interest rates, respectively. Monetary expansion has nothing to do with "booms" and "busts." We should define "boom" and "growth" as lowering interest rates, and define "bust" and "recession" as raising interest rates.

Malinvestment causes loan crises

Note that during a bust phase, one should not view the two concepts: malinvestment and unpayable loans, as related or correlated with one another. In a "bust," malinvestment may occur without a loan crises, and vice versa.

Monetary contraction causes unpayable loans. Monetary expansion, per se, does not cause increased malinvestment. Lower than "optimal" interest rates actually causes malinvestment.

Without monetary expansion, malinvestment may still occur by lowering real interest rates. Conversely, without lower interest rates, loan defaults may still occur due to not enough money to pay the loan from monetary contraction.

Artificially low interest rates

One should also note that in a free society, interest rates will probably decrease, since a free society does not have lending restrictions and taxes that increases interest rates.

Central banks cause depressions

The common Misesian folk thinks that central banks caused the Great Depression. Labor union regulations actually caused the Great Depression. The "closed shop" regulation in labor unions violently forces each individual to join the labor union, even if he or she does not want to. Also, as labor union regulations guarantee a "minimum wage," it would cause unemployment. During a monetary contraction, the real "minimum wages" guaranteed by labor unions increase above the market rate. The forced real wage increases during a monetary contraction makes the employer to fire many, thus causing massive unemployment. Thus, central banks did not cause the Great Depression, labor union regulations did.

Only abolishing minimum wages would abolish unemployment

The common paleolibertarian, especially those at the Ludwig von Mises and the LewRockwell.com institutes, thinks that only minimum wages cause unemployment. Others would refute that by citing high unemployment rates in states that do not have an official minimum wage law, such as Hong Kong. Hong Kong's strong labor union regulations caused their high unemployment rates, even they do not have any official "minimum wage." For a more obvious example, labor unions caused massive unemployment during the Great Depression, even when the official minimum wage did not "exist" at that time.

The trade deficit

Various paleolibertarians in the Mises and LewRockwell institutes, such as Bob Murphy and Peter Schiff, view the trade deficit as a harm. First of all, an actual trade deficit might not "exist". Since the state estimates the imports and exports, we should not see it as accurate. Second, trade deficits do not cause offshoring and unemployment, and vice versa.

Increased taxation forces corporations to raise the nominal prices of their products to cover their costs

Wrong. If the money supply stays constant during a corporate income tax hike, prices will stay constant. It would only decrease the nominal wages to the employees, since the money supply stays constant. Constant money supply during almost any tax hike would not cause corporations to raise their prices since the supply of money does not increase.

Also, since most corporations have tax loopholes, it would have a very small effect on the wages of the employees.

The variations of interest rates have a larger influence on employee wages than corporate taxation. If the central bank lowers interest rates, corporations would borrow more to invest in more long-term assets. This would lower the real wages of the employees since the un-optimal long-term/short-term asset ratios caused from lower interest rates does not reflect consumer preferences.

Most of the self-identified left-libertarians view anarcho-communism as compatible

Even some so-called left-libertarians deny anarcho-communism as compatible with anarchism.

Left-libertarians hate corporations

Even though that some libertarians oppose corporations as they define corporations as charters from the state, some left-libertarians defend the existence of corporations.

Not all left-libertarians hate corporations. Lee McCracken defended the existence of corporations at anti-state.com, and Kevin Carson defended the existence of corporations.

Foreign nations as economically free

Various individuals who have read Peter Schiff's book, Crash Proof: How to Profit from the Coming Economic Collapse, have brainwashed his into incorrect China-bashing views.

Many individuals who read his book, especially those Ron Paul advocates, seem to hold a belief about Peter Schiff's cult that China has more economic freedom than the United States. Schiff, the neo-mercantilist, mentioned in his book that China possesses more economic freedom because, empirically, it appears to have a larger manufacturing sector than the United States. Schiff's neo-mercantilist beliefs include that if the U.S. falls into an economic depression, China will prosper because it would not export "useless" goods but instead produce goods for their own consumption. Peter Schiff holds an idea of self-sufficiency that nations which have a large manufacturing base would supposably increase wealth. I view that as protectionism.

Foreigners have more economic freedom

Specifically, many racists believe that non-whites possess less intelligence than white people. Why does "developing" economies apparantly grow "faster" than "us" when they have less intelligent than white people? They realize that this why does the "developing" nations grow "faster" than the United States when the foreigners possess less intelligence. Finally, they concluded that the supposed superior economic "freedom" of the developing nations made their economy grow faster.

Also, the racists often possess an inferiority complex that non-white nations have more economic and political freedoms than white nations. Even though the supposably "developing" nations have massive economic regulations, high tariffs, much more corrupt, and monetary expansion much higher than the United States, the racists still concluded that the "developing" nations have more economic freedom than the United States.

This inferiority complex additionally reinforces the confirmation bias that foreign nations have more economic freedom than the United States.

Additionally, the domestic bailouts in the U.S. reinforced their confirmation bias that foreign nations have greater economic freedom than we possess.

One should view economic "freedom" as subjective. At least the foreign nations have a large counter-economy.

Definitional...aggression, coercion and violence as interchangeable

One should not confuse nonviolence, non-aggression and non-coercion. Non-aggressive violence exists: retaliation from self-defense. Murray Rothbard even defined self-defense as a violent act, even though it does not contradict non-aggression. Non-aggressive coercion exists: Threatening a criminal.

Defederalization is Overrated

Competition is non-existent at the subnational state level. The number of subnational states are limited. Not all permutations of preferences would be availiable. For example, one state may support corporations but oppose taxation. Another state may oppose corporations but support taxation. There are a limited number of combinations. The legislatures at each state would override individuals quickly. Also, individuals do not have the incentive to move from state to state. There is no real competition. If individuals do have an incentive to move, then the state would be already abolished. This is still a popularity contest.

Even if the state dismantled into hundreds of autonomous municipalities, it would be still be the same. Capitalists would still have the capital to fund propaganda to delude individuals. Capitalists would fund politicans who would re-unite the manicipalities.

If the state was suddenly abolished, capitalists would fund another state. The capitalists' supply of money are unlimited. Multinational corporations would use their money from foreign states to fund a new state.

Multinational corporations would fund wars between each others' states so individuals would choose to elect politicians who unite the states. Multinational corporations would fund violence to show that conflict would arise if there are too many autonomous municipalities. Therefore, individuals would be believe that unity is required.

Unless individuals are convinced that anarchy is the solution, capitalists would fund propaganda to show that anarchy equates violence.

The state's existence entails the majority's consent. If the majority do not consent, they would revolt against the state. This is simply because majorities possess significantly more physical force than the minority that control the state. Unless the majority is disarmed, the state resides on majority acceptance.

Like anarchism, autonomous municipalism would not work without the majority's consent. As said, the capitalists would use anything to convince the majority to vote for pro-union politicans or collude the municipalities. Anyway, federalism is shifting the popularity contest to sub-national states.

The solution is to convince the majority that free markets are the best system. If a purely free market system is adopted that contradict's the majority's consent, then the majority would revolt. Without the majority's consent, a purely free market system would only exist if there is a dictatorship--that means strict gun control, censorship and spying--to prevent criticism of the free market. Free market anarchism would exist only if the majority agrees.

If the majority agrees to free market anarchism, then it is impossible to establish a state. Municipalism would work only if the majority agrees to municipalism.

If the majority is convinced to municipalism, then municipalism would inevitably exist. If the majority is convinced to free market anarchism, then free market anarchism would inevitably exist. It is much harder to be convinced of municipalism than anarchism. Capitalists would fund the reunification of municipalities.

It is easier to be convinced of anarchism than municipalism. Most libertarians do want municipalism. This suggests that municipalitism is derived from anarchism.

Ron Paul, Bob Barr, Chuck Baldwin, and John McCain are Fascists

The Myth of "Dr. No"

Even though Ron Paul is generally seen as "Dr. No," if shown his voting record, he would rarely support his votes if these are votes for the states. The reason which he votes No on the federal level because he supports quasi-federalism, and actually supports massive state bureaucracy.

For example, he supports state protection of drugs. In his ABC News interview, he said that it's the states' responsibility to protect minors from recreational drugs. Also, more apparently, in a survey of his positions, Ron Paul explicitly refused to check the "Decriminalize the possession and private use of marijuana." option but checked the "other" option. He checked "other" because he advocates prohibition, he believes in his quasi-federalism that prohibition should be the states' job in order to increase efficiency.

Ron Paul also flip flopped on his drug position in an interview on CNN. When Ron Paul is accused of his racist writings, he responded that "I am the anti-racist because I support legalization of drugs." Ron Paul is lying about that and he would lie on anything, including his racist writings.

In his slashdot interview, Ron Paul supports patents and assumed that patents are helpful in increasing technology. Software patents are actually horrible because it hurts small companies who do not have any patent portfolio and is corporate welfare.

Ron Paul supports the corporate tax, supports corporations and supports raising corporate tax. The corporate tax hurts businesses and it is corporate welfare.

Ron Paul even vote for tax incentives for companies for domestic oil drilling. This would raise the taxes from the taxpayers to pay for these companies. This is distortion of market.

Ron Paul supports federal legislation on defence infrastructure and other kinds of infrastructure. He also voted for the invasion of Afganistan. He voted for road funding.

Mainstream propaganda's potence

Ron Paul supports federal legislation such as Deleting Online Predators Act and No Parole for Sex Offenders Act. They were acts to reduce federal funding to states who do not punish the so-called "sex-offenders." This is another violation of states' rights. His advocacy is evidence that he just support states for greater efficiency. Why did not he abolish all state funding instead of abolishing states that do not confirm to the "sex offender" regulations?

Contrary to mainstream media propaganda, most "sex offenders" did not have actually offended anyone, most of them are actually charged from indecent exposure. So most of the "sex offenders" are harmless. Those who are charged for raping a girl and those who are charged for indecent exposure, the 18 year-olds who had consensual sex with a 17-year old and those who harmlessly download child pornography are all labeled the same as "sex offender." There are many falsely accused "sex offenders" and the interpretation of "sex offense" is subjective. These "offences" can be anywhere from "vulgar speech" to other victimless crimes.

Another study showed that about 87% of rapes are actually statutory rapes. Between 27 and 60 percent of rape allegations are false.

Centralism over federalism at heart

Ron Paul is not a federalist because he supports many federal legislations such as tax incentives for research and development and offshore drilling. These are corporate welfare. In some things he support county control of education, even though he support states rights. He oppose state control of education and supports county control, which contradicts state rights.

"an excellent example of this was when he spoke at the value voters debate, when he spoke on marriage, he said that it should be out of even the States' hands, and that "WE should define it", which has certain implications considering the group he was speaking to (he also stated that anyone who wanted promote gay marriage should "just look up the definition in the dictionary"). Given that Ron Paul is a believer in Christ, it should come as no surprise he holds several of these beliefs."

So he is not a federalist. In his vote smart record. he support state funding for argriculture and education. http://www.votesmart.org/npat.php?can_id=296#533

He supports federal legislation of school vouchers, even though he thinks education should be county.

When he comes to federalism:

This are the levels that the laws he think should be placed:

Federal 1) Border security State 2) Civil rights enforcement Local 3) Education State 4) Environmental cleanup None 5) Job training State 6) Law enforcement None 7) Low-income housing State 8) Medicaid Federal 9) Medicare State 10) Welfare (AFDC)

He actually supports state civil rights and welfare. Why did he voted none for job training and low-income housing but not everything else? Why he did not vote none for civil rights and welfare? Because he supports state civil rights and welfare. He opposes these programs at federal level because he supports them at the state level.

His arguments against illegal immigration are based on his support for the welfare state.

Ron Paul also wants corporate taxes that are complicated that supports big corporations. He supports health care tax incentives for businesses and "tax incentives everything." He supports businesses providing healthcare. Why not individual pay? He is economically dumb. They are corporate welfare subsidies.

Federalism is fascism

States rights do not make free. States rights is shifting the populatory contest from the federal to states. It is still a popularity contest. Ron Paul does not even support states rights by the federal regulations and tax incentives which are corporate welfare.

Ron Paul supports states rights because he thinks it is practical. For example, he supports federal government to restrict abortion, but another speech he supports states rights'. He said that states rights are easier to promote pro-life. He is a utilitarian, and probably realize that states are just as monopolistic, but he likes federalism to easier.

Ron Paul, literally, is a fascist. He supports group rights over individual rights, which is the key idea of fascism. Augusto Pinochet supported corporations and regulations that benefit the capitalists. He hated left-interventionists. Ron Paul also wants to close borders because he hates left-interventionists. States' rights are also group rights.

Ron Paul is a utilitarian economist. He supports markets because they work, not because it is the moral path. Even though he is a paleolibertarian at the federal level, he is paleoconservative at the state level. All paleolibertarians are like that. The popularity contest at the states would collude and just be as uniform as the federal level. There would be no competition. Therefore, all paleolibertarians are paleoconservatives.

Paleoconservatives equal neoconservatives

The Paleoconservatives, even though they staunchly advocate "states' rights" and "anti-federalism," both referring to policies of delegating more the federal government to more local government such as the "states," actually do not support more "states' rights" than the other political parties. For example, they support the federal government delegating its cultural prohibition programs to the "states," not eliminating them entirely.

The Paleoconservatives have an authoritarian view on cultural issues. Other than their commonly held views prohibiting "nontraditional" behaviors including "drugs," premarital sex, prostitution, gambling, statutory "rape," and pornography, they have more serious views on prohibition. Chuck Baldwin stated that "One of the main reasons for marriage is to provide a safe, loving and controversy free environment in which to raise children. Growing up is hard especially in the current environment that includes messages from music, video and other media encouraging young people to involve themselves in activities that are destructive and dangerous both physically and emotionally." This implied that in addition to prohibiting "useless" activities such as "drugs" and sex, Paleoconservatives also want to ban entertainment and video games since they consider these as a waste of time and unproductive to society as a whole.

According to the platform of the Constitution Party (a paleoconservative political party), they declare that the subnational governments (the "states") should prohibit "nontraditional" behaviors. However, this view contradicts to their advocacy of "states' rights," they imply that the subnational governments cannot legalize the "nontraditional" behaviors, while advocating these subnational governments to do anything that they can.

On economic issues, the Paleoconservatives do just the reverse. They advocate the federal government to enforce property rights and to prohibit the subnational governments setting up their own "communist state." As the Paleoconservative want to prohibit the federal regulation and funding of healthcare and education, they also want to prohibit healthcare and education even if the subnational governments set up these. However, Chuck Baldwin supports the subnational governments providing health care. This view also contradicts their advocacy of "states' rights," by actually prohibiting the "states" to have the right to establish their own healthcare or education regulations and funding.

Their statements in the last paragraph actually contradicts their views. They actually support state regulated healthcare and education. They preserve state hospitals and the state schools as one of the reasons that they oppose immigration. They dislike how the immigrants supposedly waste taxpayer money by using the "free" hospitals and the "free" schools provided by the state. They never acknowledge that the value of the medical sector and the state "education" has "negative value," and actually parasitic.

We just showed that Paleoconservatives has a very narrow view of liberty. In cultural views, they completely disrespect liberty. The Paleoconservatives speak of liberty to refer economic liberty. We should measure economic liberty by determining the amount of state intervention: less state intervention means more economic liberty. However, the Paleoconservative definition of economic liberty seems to only consider the taxation rates, without even discerning any other variable, like business regulations. They that taxation rates primarily determine the economic liberty, with more economic liberty from lower taxation rates and less liberty from higher taxation rates. Chuck Baldwin did not even include any economic sections on his platform.

Even though they view the definition of liberty as narrow, but they also determine the overall amount of taxation narrowly. For example, Paleoconservatives often view a progressive tax as less economically free than a regressive tax, even though the progressive taxation implementation has less culminative taxation. In addition, they lacked another tax: inflation, a regressive tax.

On foreign policy, they view America as similar as what the neoconservatives view it. Though on said on the platform that they officially oppose the Iraq war, they actually advocate attacking Afghanistan. Additionally they believe in punishing all countries by prohibiting free trade.

On the LewRockwell site, it officially says that they advocate: anti-war, anti-state and pro-market.

Neither applies. As proven by their support on the invasion of Afganistan, support of reducing the state and lack of awareness of the Extensions of the state, they hardly support what they claim.

LewRockwell, for example, criticized paleoconservatism primarily due to their pro-tariff stances without any criticisms on any of their other policies, such as social conservatism and parasitic sectors, implicated that paleolibertarianism equals paleoconservatism but supporting free trade.

On another article supporting "privatization" of education. he claimed:

In short, if we could abolish public schools and compulsory schooling laws, and replace it all with [voucher-provided] education, we would have better schools at half the price, and be freer too. We would also be a more just society, with only the customers of education bearing the costs.

Only half the price?! Schooling has negative value, schooling laws hurts individuals. We demonstrated voucher education equals "state-controlled" education.

Bob Barr demonstrates the archetypical paleolibertarian. On his promotion website, he has a section explitly named "Spending & the Economy," which implies that he views that only cutting spending improves the economy. He did not have any deregulation plan, nothing of the extensions of the state. His other sections: namely, taxes and monetary policy, implies that he supports lowering taxes and the inflation tax without any deregulation. Though he supports federal deregulation of healthcare and education, he does not oppose these at state-level. The Constitution Party platform even opposes these at any level. The state would collude healthcare and education to reflect the federal. Multinational corporations would collude. On social issues, he jus' leave them to the states, mistaking that the de-federalization of these social programs would automatically let the states prohibit these more efficiently.

Constitutional fundamentalism

Many paleoconservatives and paleolibertarians alike, interpret the constitution as a bible. They view the constitution as a god that says always the correct thing. The constitutional fundamentalists repeat the amendments like verses in a bible. They consider amendments as "god-given" rights and seem perfectly written by the founding fathers.

The pro-gun organizations say the second amendment like a biblical verse. They view that individuals should have the "right" to own guns. They have a one-sided view.

Individuals should not have the right to possess firearms, like individuals should not have the right for quality education. Only the ones who want firearms, who can afford firearms and those who reside in a voluntary association allowing firearms should possess firearms.

Many constitutional fundamentalists, also mistakenly, see that if the state enforced the constitution, it would become smaller. However, the constitution only restrains at the federal level, not the subnational level. Once enforced, the subnational states would collude and resemble exactly as the federal level. Multinational corporations would fund the subnational states to reunite into one federal state.

One should not interpret the constitution; one should interpret the non-aggression principle.

Paleolibertarian's mercantile capitalism

Various dictionaries define a trade deficit as the a greater number of imports relative to exports. Also, these define trade surplus as a greater number of exports relative to imports. Various individuals have a false view that trade deficits harm the economy. They believe that trade deficits increase unemployment. The paleoconservative opposition to trade deficits stems from their view that trade deficits increase unemployment. Paleoconservatives including Chuck Baldwin, the nominee for the United States 2008 Presidential election, view that trade deficits cause unemployment.

However, trade deficits do not affect unemployment. Minimum wage, labor union regulations, hiring and firing costs and other regulations cause unemployment. Therefore, in a free market, we expect zero unemployment.

Many paleolibertarian economists, like the paleolibertarians, also believe that trade deficits hurt the economy. Unlike the paleoconservatives, the paleolibertarians do not think that tariffs would benefit the economy.

Many paleolibertarians have a mistaken view that the federal reserve and less economic liberty, per se, causes a trade deficit.

Foreign investment may cause trade deficits. Attractive places to invest will have a trade deficit, since these compel foreign investment. For example, strong economic liberty, inflation and intellectual "property" may increase foreign investment, which increases the trade deficit. Although libertarians should oppose intellectual property as privileges, intellectual property encourages foreigners to "invest" domestically in entertainment. A small advantage of a nation attracting foreign investment may result in a huge trade deficit. For example, if the average foreigner invests his property in a nation with 15% rate of return per year, the imports may equal seventeen times the exports. A huge deficit may result in just little increased foreign investment, for example.Â

Inflation may increase foreign speculation. Inflation encourages borrowing at negative real interest rates.

Also, we should look whether a trade deficit actually exists. Inaccuracies on calculating the balance of trade may induce a trade deficit. The state may actually conclude that a trade deficit exists when this does not. The state estimates a nation's GDP and the balance of trade. The state estimates the GDP and the balance of trade by collecting the tax statistics, such as the tariffs on imports and exports. For example, if the state collects a greater amount of tariffs from imports, it would increase the total number of imports. Non-state firms (private firms) cannot give an accurate estimate of GDP. Non-state firms lack the taxation data which can also deduce the amount of imports and exports. Individuals overwhelmingly cite the state's estimate of GDP and balance of trade over GDP estimates by non-state estimated GDP. The state estimates inaccurate statistics, since the state lacks any economic incentives to provide accurate statistics. For example, if the state left out the additional exports in the process of estimating the balance of trade, it may result in a trade deficit. The state may underestimate e-commerce and software exports, because the state does not tax the Internet. Underrecording Internet purchases from individuals in other nations yields in a trade deficit.

The Democrats and Republicans

Political positions contradict itself

We should not mistakenly divide the mainstream politics into two groups---The Democratic Party and the Republican Party. Parties mean nothing, as there exist various differences of viewpoints within each party. We should not stereotype each party. Not all Democrats support one policy and not all Republican support one policy either. For example, just because an individual supports Universal Healthcare, this does not imply that he or she would more likely oppose the War in Iraq. Just because an individual supports abortion, it does not imply that he or she would more likely to oppose taxes. Political positions among various individuals do not have any correlation with one another. However, as we see in a two-party system, one party may have a set of highly correlated political positions and the other may have opposite positions. The political positions often contradict each other within each party. Due to the two-party system, no political party have a consistent, ideological belief. In order to succeed in the two-party system, politicians must possess contradictory viewpoints in order to win an election. Politicians often lie to hold these contradictory beliefs to win. Honest politicians usually support positions incompatible to the political parties, and thus will lose.

No stereotypes

As two-party systems results in mergers which ultimately reduces to two available options, individuals who does not prefer only the two available candidates would not join any of the two dominant parties. We see many individuals in independent and third parties form because both of the parties may not match the individual's positions. Over 30% of the voters in the United States subscribe to the "Independent Party" as a result. This also reinforces the view that political positions do not correlate with each other, and shows that political parties often hold contradictory political positions and often group similar candidates.

Differences of Democrat Party and Republican Party political platforms, which more libertarian?

As repetitively proved in the last section, individuals have a diverse array of political positions that do not correlate with each other nor do they correlate with the positions on political parties. However, if one wants to compare the political party platforms just for fun, I will prove that no party, Democrat or Republican advocates a smaller state than the other.

Many paleoconservatives and those who support the Mises Institute often view that the Republican Party as smaller government. However, they have a mistaken view. The view refers to the perceived lesser taxation rates of the Republican Party platform. The Republican Party platform proposes only cutting taxes on the already privileged corporations and the upper class, at the expense of the lower class. The platform advocates a flat tax, therefore increasing the income of the working class to decrease taxes on the already privileged. Nothing libertarian about it. In fact, they actually advocate a regressive tax, funded by the regressive inflation.

In the economic issues, the Republican Platform just advocates taxation meddling and state-regulated privatization. No deregulation plans. Though they oppose healthcare subsidies, they favor the same regulations. They 100% support big-pharma, ironic for their opposition to less harmful drugs. On education, the Republican platform supports "voucher" provided education, though we disproved that voucher-provided education improves "state-managed education." Their platform supporting the parasitic No Child Left Behind Act implies that they also want standardized testing of all schools, including homeschool. They want to regulate the homeschooling curricula for standaridized testing and homeschooling teaching methods to revert into an outdated teaching method.

Another view occurs in the perceived reduction in "pork-barrel spending." The Republican Party platform, even though just as pro-war as the Democrats, advocates significant increases in the military, which may offset the combined Democrat Party welfare expenditure. McCain proposes to greatly increase military spending. McCain also approves of healthcare subsidies $2500 to each and every individual. McCain voted along with Bush 95% of the time and Obama voted along the Democrats 97% of the time.

On family values and culture, the Republican Party platform supports the death penalty for those individuals over age 18 who voluntarily had sex with a 17-year old, from their opposition to statutory "rape." The Republican Party platform wants to sentence to death those who voluntary sell "illegal" drugs and the non-violent prostitution services, similar to the Constitution Party platform. Democrat platform also, supports prohibiting non-violent "crimes," but not as extreme as the Republican Party platform.

John McCain wants to set up a cap n' trade system, equivalent to the Democratic platform. John McCain supports the bailout, wants to regulate Wall Street, supports "alternative energy" funding, and the bureaucratic deployment of solar panels, dams, biofuels, and windmills. The Republican platform supports increased state infrasture, a prelude of their larger macroeconomicplan of "free" trade, including the murdering machine that kills tens of thousands of individuals per year: roads.

On trade issues, McCain supports the WTO and other trade agreements. We do not need any trade agreements to lower tarrifs, since most countries have low tarrifs before implementing trade agreements. Also, the WTO enforces intellectual protectionism (not intellectual "property"), enforcement of envorinmental regulations and colludes all the "food and drug administrations" in the world in the disguise of "safty" standards.

The Republicans also want the NAFTA highway

The Fascist Republican Party

Is Chuck Baldwin "More Libertarian" Than Bob Barr?

An article suggests that the state tries to pass a bill that requires manufacturers to do expensive testing.

The bill requires compulsory testing of clothing, furniture, toys, games, shoes, books, CDs, and other merchandise designed for children. The tests requires all businesses to purchase expensive testing, so it would affect small businesses the most.

We will show a couple of quotes about the expensive testing process:

However, Jacobsen told WND that lead testing is estimated to cost $100 to $400 for each of her used children's books because she does not buy in bulk, and each batch of merchandise is required to be tested.

There's a big difference between me and Wal-Mart or Toys 'R' Us," she said. "They'll have a batch of 50,000. Everything I have is a batch of one because I don't know its history. I'm looking at a testing cost of about $1.2 million. I would normally sell my full inventory of all children's products for probably $15,000. So, it's effectively a ban.

All children's toys and furniture also fall under strict requirements for independent lead and phthalate testing. Some small toy businesses say lead testing alone costs more than $4,000 per item - a price some say only large companies like Mattel and Fisher Price can afford to pay.

[The retailer] estimates testing for each of her clothing articles to run between $300 and $1,500. The Consumer Product Safety Commission said it may consider exempting clothing and toys made from natural materials such as wool or wood, but paint and dyes on the products are still required to be tested.

But they are talking about $100,000 fines and jail terms of up to five years. I'm not comfortable operating with that law on the books.

The Socialist Fiscal-Conservatives

In the House of Representatives, 424 members voted yes and only one member, Ron Paul, voted against it.

The three Senate Republicans, Tom Coburn, Jim DeMint, and Jon Kyl, who voted against the bill did not really oppose it. They only oppose the way the state implemented it, and in this case they might oppose it on the federal level. If the state-level legislatures introduced the bill, however, all of the three Republicans will vote for it.1

All of the three Republican Senators want to impose their cultural and social conservative views on others. They oppose profanity, support the murderers,2 compulsory indoctrination of the English language, No Child Left Behind Act, and the so-called sex "offender" laws. By sex "offenders," we mean that the majority of sex "offenders" did victimless "crimes" but coerced to register as sex "offenders." We consider it collective punishment to conflate both the aggressive and victimless types of "sex offenders" to the Orwellian term "sex offenders." Even Ron Paul supports the sex "offender" laws.

In fact, one of the three Senate Republicans has voted for the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, (a.k.a. the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act) which some studies show that the Act costs $1.4 trillion in regulatory compliance. The other two Republicans did not sit at Senate when Congress passed the Act, but they would probably vote for it if they had gone there at that time. The Congress unanimously passed the bill at that time.

Even though the general population might view these Republicans as the top three fiscal conservatives in the Senate, they always had voted for farm subsidies and other massive subsidies.

References

• 1 Tom Coburn, one of the three Republicans, at his page, endorsed state's rights. The two other Republicans, Jim DeMint and Jon Kyl, support state's rights also on the discredited "greater say" argument.
• 2 Look at Jim DeMint's and Tom Cobrin's "respecting" the mass murderers pages. All of the Congressman, including Ron Paul, unanimously support the murderers as much as these Republicans do.

Hat tip to Rationalitate.