Gay Time Preference

Submitted by Bill St. Clair on Wed, 13 Apr 2005 12:00:00 GMT
From smith2004:
"Most people would rather die than think. And often do." -- Bertrand Russell

# - What They Do Best - cartoon commentary on how our congress critters will likely "fix" high gas prices. Hehe.

# Hans-Hermann Hoppe at - My Battle With the Thought Police - Mr. Hoppe tells about his fight with the political correctness weenies at the University of Las Vegas. Heaven forbid that you should say that faggots, on account of having no biological children, tend to have a higher degree of time preference. And he didn't even use the derogatory term, as I did, for men who screw other men. [lew]

# Ron Paul at - Theology, Not Politics - Dr. Paul applauds Pope John Paul II for acting from a theological, not political, center. [lew]

To the secularists, this was John Paul II's unforgivable sin -- he placed service to God above service to the state. Most politicians view the state, not God, as the supreme ruler on earth. They simply cannot abide a theology that does not comport with their vision of unlimited state power. This is precisely why both conservatives and liberals savaged John Paul II when his theological pronouncements did not fit their goals. But perhaps their goals simply were not godly.

Unlike most political leaders, the Pope understood that both personal and economic liberties are necessary for human virtue to flourish. Virtue, after all, involves choices. Politics and government operate to deny people the freedom to make their own choices.

The Pope's commitment to human dignity, grounded in the teachings of Christ, led him to become an eloquent and consistent advocate for an ethic of life, exemplified by his struggles against abortion, war, euthanasia, and the death penalty. Yet what institutions around the world sanction abortion, war, euthanasia, and the death penalty? Governments.

# David MacGregor at Strike the Root - The 'Singapore' Factor: Towards Anarchy and the Market Order - a pretty good explanation of the difference between political and market order. [root]

Government is the POLITICAL means of achieving order. The market is the VOLUNTARY means of achieving order.

The political process is entirely different from the market process. In a political order the power derives from the use of force. In a market order the power derives from the voluntary consent of the participants.

So, to use the Body Corporate analogy again, if you buy a condo in a classy complex--which has the rule that you cannot make undue noise after 11 p.m.--then the Body Corporate will enforce those rules. However, you agreed to them when you first purchased your property, as part of the contract you entered into.

It is this important element of "agreement" that is missing in the political ordering of things. Things happen WITHOUT your agreement. And they happen to YOU!

Oh sure, this is glossed over by reference to voting every three or four years. But this is a joke obviously, because you know that even if you vote, it makes no difference--especially if who you voted for doesn't gain power. Political voting is a charade, designed to give the cloak of respectability to an otherwise thoroughly despicable practice--rule by the mob.

And you certainly didn't enter into any "contract" with your existing nation of birth. Socialists like to talk of the "social contract," but that's just a red herring. To be born somewhere is a complete accident on your part, and cannot be construed as some sort of contract.


The successful city-states of the world (including Singapore, Hong Kong, Dubai, Monaco, Liechtenstein, and certain existing tax havens, etc.) point to a new way of doing things. They are small enough to be flexible in this fast changing age. They are small enough to be responsive to the actual wishes of people. They are small enough to get things done. And interestingly enough, they are all low tax jurisdictions--meaning they are fundamentally more competitive than the behemoth "old world" nation states--like the USA, UK, France, Germany, etc.

In fact, both Singapore and Dubai present an even closer model to the idea of a "corporation." Both have been created by the vision and single-mindedness of individuals--benevolent "dictators" if you will. Perhaps they were precursors of the CEOs of the city states of the future.

# Fred Reed at Strike the Root - Democracy, Birds and Snails - how Amerika and China get closer politically every day. Personally, I think we'll cross paths pretty soon, and China will be the freer country. [smith2004]

Now, any time I refer to the United States as a democracy, I get mail, from people vaguely remembering high-school civics, who tell me that the US is not a democracy but a constitutional republic. In fact is neither. A democracy is of course any governmental system in which ultimate power rests with the people; direct democracies, parliamentary democracies, and constitutional republics are all examples of democracy. In America, the people are nearly powerless, in large part without knowing it. The trick has been done by giving them furiously fought elections that don't mean anything. This distracts them and gives them a sense of participation, while maintaining their proper role as consumers.

The United States is not the country it thinks it is. It moves fast toward a curious comfortable despotism. This is of course precisely what people want. A few observations:


In the words of the great political philosopher Fredwitz, democracy is communism continued by other means. Pretty much, anyway.


The will of the people? Hardly. Americans do not determine any policy that matters. (E.g., regarding race, affirmative....) The techniques for guaranteeing an unnoticed helplessness are simple but brilliant. First, people are never permitted to vote for policies, but an only for one or another of two essentially identical presidential candidates who prate identically about Getting the Country Moving, and No Child Left Behind. The results determine not policy but patronage. Second, power is concentrated in remote anonymous bureaucracies, rendering policy impervious to attack. Third, there is the federal tactic of taxing the states and returning the money in exchange for obedience.

Add comment Edit post Add post