Video: Hunger Games' Catching Fire: Is Katniss a Modern-Day Spartacus?

My daughter wanted to watch Hunger Games: Catching Fire, so my wife and I accompanied her. I haven't seen the first episode The Hunger Games in its entirety (I saw only the last segment on cable TV) but headed to the movie with a general idea of the plot. Nonetheless, I came out quite impressed by the second series.  Reason? The movie seem like an allegorical portrayal of real world politics; freedom versus despotic political power

Learn liberty has a video explaining the popular appeal of Hunger Games and related movies: (hat tip Cafe Hayek)

Literature and legend often reflect their culture. Some themes, like that of rulers imposing coercive power, or of individuals rising up against tyrants, are as relevant today as they were in antiquity. Suzanne Collins drew on Greek mythology's story of the Minotaur and on the legend of Spartacus in ancient Rome as she created the Hunger Games series. Her hero, like the heroes in these stories, does not seek her own power or profit but is standing up against a violent and tyrannical government. "People everywhere yearn for the freedom to pursue their own goals and dreams," says Prof. Amy Sturgis. Even though the themes are ancient, stories like the Hunger Games resonate with readers because the anxieties and fears they portray are real and relevant. "These stories aren't just entertainment," Sturgis says. "They are reflections of who and what we are." Do the themes in these stories resonate with you? Why?

Why I Will Not Vote; Liquor Ban and No Stock Market Commentary

I will not participate or risk my life and limb or spend scarce time, effort, and resources in the selection process of so-called political leaders, undergirded by a political system that legitimizes the systematic picking of people’s pockets and the progressive curtailment of liberty through organized institutional violence under the guise of the ‘social justice’ sham

I will also not partake on the delusion where individuals have been programmed to believe that they are primarily members of the collective, which the individual is subordinate to, and that people have control over such leaders. In reality, such elections serve no more than a spectator sport or the race to bottom to manipulate the electorate with freedom constricting, “free lunches” tomfoolery themes in order to justify their assumption to office. This quasi mob rule (either by majority or plurality) selection process, of course, serves as the foundation to the system’s legitimacy.

Such pretentious virtues can already be seen via the election liquor ban regulation. The edict logically implies that election violence is a direct result of alcoholic intoxication rather than of mainly impassioned electoral competition (among the other many but trivial or coincidental factors). The ban essentially lumps two different variables into one, which is a logical absurdity. Electoral violence will happen with or without alcohol.

The Supreme Court struck down the administration’s extension of such ban. Yet such arbitrary regulations reveals of the priorities of those in power that gives preference to the political—the coercive picking of the pocket of Juan to give or transfer some of Juan’s money to Pedro, as the chosen political leaders keep the rest of the booty for themselves—rather than to the socio-economic system. More signs why today’s economic boom has been a paper tiger.

Of course, every arbitrary rule has beneficiaries. Aside from politicians, the tourism industry is exempted from such prohibition, thus the ban signifies an implicit subsidy to the latter. So there will be a boom in tourism and tourism related establishments at the expense of the sari-sari stores, carinderias, bars, and etc.., where the latter group will theoretically bear the brunt in terms of lost incomes. See how arbitrary rules promote inequality? Under the whims of political agents, those politically blessed get the benefits while the rest are left stuck in a rut. That’s “social justice” for you.

On the other hand, affected consumers, like me, will be displeased as prohibition takes away our satisfactions, and most importantly, limits our freedom of choice.

Also the people who will patronize prohibition exempted tourist and tourist related establishments are most likely the well off. So the “haves” can publicly swill on alcohol while the “non-haves” cannot. Thus prohibition statutes essentially discriminate against the lower segments of the society, which ironically and duplicitously, such supposed “virtuous” institutions proclaim to protect.

Worst, repressive prohibition fiats are imposed on us by people who pretend to know what is best for us. In reality, political paternalism represents a charade which has been used as an excuse to pick on our pockets and expand political control over our actions. As an old saw goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

But the good thing is that because the domestic posse (dictionary.com: a body or force armed with legal authority) will be concentrating much of their efforts in the monitoring of electoral grounds or voting precincts, this means the prohibition will likely be infringed upon or would generally be toothless, but with exceptions. 

As an aside, this doesn’t mean that banned establishments will be serving alcohol but rather transactions will be done underground.

The exclusion is that the liquor ban policies can be or will be used selectively as strong-arm or harassment tactic against political foes.

This can also be used by authorities as pretext to mulct on the hapless consumer which is a source of corruption

In other words, such skewed, unfair and immoral legal restrictions, aside from heated political competition, incentivize electoral violence regardless of the presence of alcohol.

All these reveals how arbitrary statutes debauch on society’s moral fiber. These are things the public does not see and which the political class and media will not tell you. Economics function as a fundamental pillar of ethics.

In view of the senselessness of “feel good” politics, I will take this opportunity to spend precious moments with my family this extended weekend. Thus I will not be publishing my weekly stock market commentary and may limit my blogging activities

And if you want to know more on why I wouldn’t vote, my favorite iconoclast comedian the late George Carlin explains two reasons which I share…

Thank you for your patronage.

Have a great and safe weekend

Yours in truth and in liberty

Benson

The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can't get and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods.  

-- H. L. Mencken

(1880-1956) American Journalist, Editor, Essayist, Linguist, Lexicographer, and Critic

Quote of the Day: Invoking Democracy to Destroy Freedom

People are taught that, thanks to democracy, coercion is no longer dangerous because people get to vote on who coerces them. Because people are permitted a role in choosing who will be in charge of the penal code, they are free. Being permitted to vote for politicians who enact unjust, oppressive new laws magically converts the stripes on prison shirts into emblems of freedom. But it takes more than voting to make coercion benign.

The fiction of majority rule has become a license to impose nearly unlimited controls on the majority and everybody else. The doctrine of “majority rule equals freedom” is custom-made to turn mobs of voters into spoiled children with a divine right to plunder the candy store. The only way to equate submission to majority-sanctioned decrees with individual freedom is to assume that individuals have no right to live in any way that displeases the majority.

The more confused people’s thinking becomes, the easier it is for rulers to invoke democracy to destroy freedom. The issue is not simply Lincoln ‘s, Roosevelt’s, Clinton’s or Bush’s absurd statements on freedom but a cultural–intellectual smog in which politicians have unlimited leeway to redefine freedom. If politicians can redefine freedom at their whim, then they can raze limits on their own power.

This is from libertarian author and lecturer James Bovard at the Freeman.

It is important to distinguish constitutional/liberal democracy with that of social democracy and of mob rule (Ochlocracy)

South Korea: Mini Skirt Regulation Provokes Outrage

All sorts of civil restrictions seem to be cropping up from governments worldwide.

In South Korea, new regulations on mini skirt, which domestic officials label as “excessive” public exposure, have prompted for public outrage.

From Korea Times

A decree to fine those who engage in “excessive” public exposure passed at a Cabinet meeting presided over by President Park Geun-hye ignited controversy Monday.

The decree is expected to go into effect starting March 22.

People were outraged by the 50,000 won fine, as it brought back memories of similar restrictions on skirt lengths in the 1970s under the rule of the late President Park Chung-hee.

Many netizens criticized the decree as a signal of a return to the authoritarian era.

Social networks services, such as Twitter and Facebook, were buzzing with critical comments ― ranging from who decides the standards of decency to whether the decree will apply to swimming pools and gymnasiums.

Considering that South Korea ranks as one of the most wired or web connected nation in the world, it would be interesting to watch the forces of decentralization “netcitizens” square off with her centralized government.

The trend to regulate everything seem also an offshoot to bubble cycles, where the expanding sphere of political control represent growing signs of desperation by political forces over failed policies. Such also signifies the attempt to divert the public's attention from real problems.

Video: Is America Becoming Europe? Security over Freedom?

This interesting video asks whether the evolving trend of social policies in the US will lead her to assimilate Europe's "promises of security over freedom" (hat tip Dan Mitchell)

I am reminded by Benjamin Franklin, founding father of the US, who said

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Quote of the Day: To Achieve Liberty, Envy and Intolerance have to be Overcome

To achieve liberty and peace, two powerful human emotions have to be overcome. Number one is "envy" which leads to hate and class warfare. Number two is "intolerance" which leads to bigoted and judgmental policies. These emotions must be replaced with a much better understanding of love, compassion, tolerance, and free market economics. Freedom, when understood, brings people together. When tried, freedom is popular.

The problem we have faced over the years has been that economic interventionists are swayed by envy, whereas social interventionists are swayed by intolerance of habits and lifestyles. The misunderstanding that tolerance is an endorsement of certain activities, motivates many to legislate moral standards which should only be set by individuals making their own choices. Both sides use force to deal with these misplaced emotions. Both are authoritarians. Neither endorses voluntarism. Both views ought to be rejected.

I have come to one firm conviction after these many years of trying to figure out "the plain truth of things." The best chance for achieving peace and prosperity, for the maximum number of people world-wide, is to pursue the cause of LIBERTY.

If you find this to be a worthwhile message, spread it throughout the land.

This excerpt is from the stirring farewell speech by Ron Paul at the US Congress

Quote of the Day: The Right of the Individual’s Happiness

Now let me point out to you that we have not arrived simply at an abstract result, but that this question of liberty as against force will be found to enter into all the great questions of the day. It is the only one real and permanent dividing line between opinions. Whatever party names we may give ourselves, this is the question always waiting for an answer, Do you believe in force and authority, or do you believe in liberty? Hesitations, inconsistencies there may be—men shading off from each side into that third party which in critical and decisive times has become a proverb of weakness—but the two great masses of the thinking world are ever ranged on the one side or the other, supporters of authority, believers in liberty.

What, then, is the creed of liberty, and to what, in accepting it, are we committed? We have seen that there exists a great primary right that as men are placed here for happiness (we need not dispute as to the meaning of the term), so each man must be held to be the judge of his own happiness. No man, or body of men, has the right to wrest this judgment away from their fellow man. It is impossible to deny this, for no man can have rights over another man unless he first have rights over himself. He cannot possess the right to direct the happiness of another man, unless he possess rights to direct his own happiness: and if we grant him the latter right, this is at once fatal to the former right. Indeed to deny this right, or to abridge anything from it, is to reduce the moral world to complete disorder. Deny this right and you have no foundation left for rights of any kind—for justice, political freedom, or political equality—you have established the reign of force, and whatever gloss of civilization you may place over it, you have brought men once more to the “good old plan” on which our fathers stood.

(bold emphasis added) 

This excellent quote is from philosopher and individualist Auberon Edward Herbert in The Widest Possible Liberty written in January 1, 1885

Video: Explaining The Tyranny of the Majority

Should majorities decide everything?

That's the question dealt by Duke University Professor Mike Munger in the following video at the LearnLiberty.org (thanks to Tim Hedberg for the video)

A synopsis from LearnLiberty.org

Under a democratic system of government, how is an individual protected from the tyranny of the majority? According to Professor Munger, democratic constitutions consist of two parts: one defining the limits within which decisions can be made democratically, and the other establishing the process by which decisions will be made. In the United States Constitution, the individual is protected from majority decisions. Professor Munger warns, however, that these protections are slowly being stripped away as American courts of law fail to recognize the limits of what can be decided by majority rule. Professor Munger uses the case of Kelo v. New London to illustrate the dangers of confusing majority rule with a democratic system.

It is important to note that the lessons from the above doesn't apply just to the US but has been universal through modern political institutions. For instance, Europe's unfolding crisis has substantially been influenced by the rule of the majority channeled through the populist welfare state.

In the Philippines, such dynamic has been evident through Pork Barrel "personality" based politics.

Yet all one has to do is to look at how media and politicians shapes public opinion. Even trivial events have been sensationalized to bring about political importance. Events are always projected to appeal to the majority's emotions subtly intended to mold and manipulate the public's sense of social morality e.g. collectivism via "selfless" nationalism "para sa bayan", which have been and will be used as basis for legal mandates premised on the rule of the majority.

The tyranny of the majority as the great Professor Ludwig von Mises warned, (Theory and History p. 66-67)

If public opinion is ultimately responsible for the structure of government, it is also the agency that determines whether there is freedom or bondage. There is virtually only one factor that has the power to make people unfree—tyrannical public opinion. The struggle for freedom is ultimately not resistance to autocrats or oligarchs but resistance to the despotism of public opinion. It is not the struggle of the many against the few but of minorities—sometimes of a minority of but one man—against the majority. The worst and most dangerous form of absolutist rule is that of an intolerant majority

In short, the ethical tenet embraced by democratic politics has been "Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote". People essentially lose their "rationality" when they become overwhelmed by Groupthink dynamics applied to politics.

Importantly, the tyranny of the majority is just but one phase of the harsh political reality. Democratic politics has largely been about the rule of the political minority who uses and manipulates the majority as an instrument to acquire their self interested goals.

So democracy is essentially an illusion where the majority rules but through the palms of the privileged politically mandated minority.

Quote of the Day: Your Identity Properly Belongs to you

Everyone has areas of utter privacy to protect. Some people wear lockets containing photos of deceased relatives; others daydream about a forbidden love; still other people lock the door while luxuriating in a hot bubble bath; or, perhaps, they write a love letter that is meant for one other set of eyes only. These acts are a line drawn between the private and public sphere; they constitute a boundary over which no other human being can rightfully cross without invitation.

If a neighbor reads takes it upon himself to read letters in your mailbox or copies down the details of deposits in a bankbook he has ‘encountered’ in your desk drawer, you would feel violated and enraged by the invasion. What is wrong for your neighbor to do is also wrong for a government agent to do because there is only one standard of morality. Theft is theft, invasion is invasion. You have the right to slam the door on the face of anyone who says differently. A peaceful human being owes no debt to any other person.

Hold the state up to the same standard as your neighbors…because there are no double standards of right and wrong. Privacy is a right, not an admission of guilt. Your identity properly belongs to you…not to the state.

This is from author Wendy McElroy at the Laissez Faire Books

Quote of the Day: Terrorism Cannot Take Away Our Freedoms

The goal of terrorism is not to crash planes, or even to kill people; the goal of terrorism is to cause terror. Liquid bombs, PETN, planes as missiles: these are all tactics designed to cause terror by killing innocents. But terrorists can only do so much. They cannot take away our freedoms. They cannot reduce our liberties. They cannot, by themselves, cause that much terror. It's our reaction to terrorism that determines whether or not their actions are ultimately successful. That we allow governments to do these things to us—to effectively do the terrorists' job for them—is the greatest harm of all.

That's from Mr. Bruce Schneier, a security expert, in a debate on Airport Security at the Economist (hat tip Cato's Julian Sanchez)

Circumventing Political Term Limits via Political Dynasties

Chidem Kurdas at the Thinkmarkets notes that term limits on political authorities don’t serve as sufficient protection against the concentration of political power, and points to the recent events in Russia as example.

The point of term limits is to prevent the buildup of political power by one person or group. In Russia’s ersatz version, Vladimir Putin merrily plays revolving door with his protégé Dmitry Medvedev. Mr. Putin may win the election on March 4th despite the persistent protests sparked by his latest round of musical chairs with Mr. Medvedev.

That means Mr.Putin could potentially be Russia’s president again for two terms lasting through 2024, bringing his overall reign at the top as either prime minister or president to almost 25 years…

Mr Kurdas further argues that democracy and term limits may not be compatible.

It is sometimes argued that term limits are undemocratic—why not let the voters decide whether or not they want the candidate to stay in office for another term? This is the same type of argument as those used against Constitutional checks and balances.

The Russian situation shows how very dangerous is the notion of dispensing with limits and leaving it all up to elections. If anything, term limits need to be more stringent and unconditional so as to function as an effective barrier against politicians looking to consolidate their hold. Mr. Putin’s massive power, built over the years and now giving him almost complete control over the media as well as much of the economy, may yet enable him to overstay his welcome even as many Russians take to the streets to show their displeasure. To add a postscript to the wise old adage that power corrupts—the longer the reign, the greater the corruption.

The failure of democratic check and balance on political term limits has been a very relevant issue to the Philippine political setting.

Philippine politicians in almost all levels have become quite efficient in or adept at the gaming of the system.

In contrast to Russia’s experience, local politicians mechanistically circumvent term limits by having family relatives run for local or even national elective positions, thus resulting to pervasive political dynasties.

According to Wikipedia.org, the 14^th Congress of the Philippines (from July 23, 2007 to June 4, 2010 had about 75%) more than 75% of the lawmakers are members of the old political families.

Philippine politicians have done this through a mélange of tactics in the form of manipulation of the political system through laws, buying voters with various forms of welfarism and through Pork Barrel politics.

There has also been a marketing dimension in the promotion political dynasties, political debates have been reduced to personal issues (what I call as personality based politics) which has been amplified by mainstream media, and lastly, selling elections via the celebrity cult status (where politicians try to get a lot of media mileage or associate themselves with media or sports celebrities).

The failure of democracy to curb political abuse through term limits represents the proverbial tip of the iceberg. That’s because the chink of the armor of mob rule politics is mainly rooted upon the popular reliance to the political means of allocation of resources

As the great Professor Ludwig von Mises wrote,

The capitalistic social order, therefore, is an economic democracy in the strictest sense of the word. In the last analysis, all decisions are dependent on the will of the people as consumers.

For as long as people remain highly reliant on politicians rather than themselves, the political environment will be highly vulnerable to the manipulations by the political class and their allies (directly or indirectly).

Democracy only works if the system benefits individual liberties.

As US Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes one said

While democracy must have its organizations and controls, its vital breath is individual liberty.

Quote of the Day: Fervent Love of Individual Liberty

In receiving of the Alexis de Tocqueville Award, I excerpt Professor Robert Higgs' speech, (italics original)

For society as a whole, I wish nothing more fervently than I wish that it should be as free as possible. For me, freedom is not simply the highest-ranked value with regard to public affairs; it stands on a level by itself, far above all the others.

I espouse individual liberty in this “extreme” fashion for two reasons, which in my mind complement one another. The first is that freedom is the optimal condition for each individual’s engagement in society. To be driven, bullied, abused, disregarded, treated with contempt and dishonor―these are bad things in themselves, not only for me, but for every human being. We ought to recoil from them, regardless of whether the perpetrator is a local cop or the government in Washington. Yet all too many of us become accustomed to such official cruelties and take them in stride without much conscious thought that they are wrongs and ought to be stopped, regardless of their source.

Individual liberty, however, is also an instrument for the creation of many of the conditions, goods, and services that constitute material abundance and relieve many of the anxieties and pains that once accompanied social life for almost everyone. Virtually everyone favors economic development, especially inasmuch as it reduces or eliminates extreme poverty. Individual liberty is a necessary condition for sustained economic progress. The specific conditions of a free society―private property rights, secure contracts, a reliable rule of law―are prerequisites for the ongoing creation of wealth in the long run. At this late date, after we have witnessed the personal horrors and economic disasters brought about by socialist central planning, it should not be necessary to go on preaching the gospel of private property and the market economy, yet we all know that many people still do not understand these essential matters and often act politically to thwart the operation of a genuinely free society.

Congratulations for a very much well deserved honor, Professor Higgs.

War on the Internet: Legalized Spying of Email?

Incumbent political institutions will continue to wage war of controls against the immensely expanding social media. The latter is being proven as a crystallizing force in politics (e.g. Arab Spring)

I have covered part of this cat and mouse engagement here, here, here and here. Now the theatre of war has expanded to include prying into personal emails.

This from Wall Street Journal (bold emphasis mine)

The U.S. government has obtained a controversial type of secret court order to force Google Inc. and small Internet provider Sonic.net Inc. to turn over information from the email accounts of WikiLeaks volunteer Jacob Appelbaum, according to documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.

Sonic said it fought the government's order and lost, and was forced to turn over information. Challenging the order was "rather expensive, but we felt it was the right thing to do," said Sonic's chief executive, Dane Jasper. The government's request included the email addresses of people Mr. Appelbaum corresponded with the past two years, but not the full emails.

Both Google and Sonic pressed for the right to inform Mr. Appelbaum of the secret court orders, according to people familiar with the investigation. Google declined to comment. Mr. Appelbaum, 28 years old, hasn't been charged with wrongdoing.

The court clashes in the WikiLeaks case provide a rare public window into the growing debate over a federal law that lets the government secretly obtain information from people's email and cellphones without a search warrant. Several court decisions have questioned whether the law, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, violates the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.

WikiLeaks is a publisher of documents that people can submit anonymously. After WikiLeaks released a trove of classified government diplomatic cables last year, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said the U.S. was pursuing an "active criminal investigation" of WikiLeaks.

Passed in 1986, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act is older than the World Wide Web, which was dreamed up in 1989. A coalition of technology companies—including Google, Microsoft Corp. and AT&T Corp.—is lobbying Congress to update the law to require search warrants in more digital investigations.

The law was designed to give the same protections to electronic communications that were already in place for phone calls and regular mail. But it didn't envision a time when cellphones transmitted locations and people stored important documents on remote services, such as Gmail, rather than on their own computers.

Law enforcement uses the law to obtain some emails, cellphone-location records and other digital documents without getting a search warrant or showing probable cause that a crime has been committed. Instead the law sets a lower bar: The government must show only "reasonable grounds" that the records would be "relevant and material" to an investigation.

As a result, it can be easier for law-enforcement officers to see a person's email information than it is to see their postal mail.

Another significant difference: A person whose email is inspected this way often never knows a search was conducted. That's because court orders under the 1986 law are almost always sealed, and the Internet provider is generally prohibited from notifying the customer whose data is searched. By contrast, search warrants are generally delivered to people whose property is being searched.

Read the rest here

Politics has never been about transparency or tolerance of political differences or of freedom of speech or of respect of privacy but has been about censorship and the suppression of political opponents or the despotic control of the flow of information. This applies not just in the US but everywhere.

Current day politics essentially represents an ongoing battle between vertical political forces, vestiges of the industrial age, against the new generation individual based or bottom-up forces whom have been enabled and empowered by the web, such as Wikileaks.

Even the current welfare-financial crisis being endured by mostly Western or developed nations have been clear symptoms of the erosion of this untenable structure.

It’s the same war that’s being wage at almost every aspects of our lives.

A war against our civil liberties. And, through the internet and through education, we are fighting back.

As Ludwig von Mises wrote,

Everything that happens in the social world in our time is the result of ideas. Good things and bad things. What is needed is to fight bad ideas. We must fight all that we dislike in public life. We must substitute better ideas for wrong ideas. We must refute the doctrines that promote union violence. We must oppose the confiscation of property, the control of prices, inflation, and all those evils from which we suffer.

Ideas and only ideas can light the darkness. These ideas must be brought to the public in such a way that they persuade people. We must convince them that these ideas are the right ideas and not the wrong ones. The great age of the nineteenth century, the great achievements of capitalism, were the result of the ideas of the classical economists, of Adam Smith and David Ricardo, of Bastiat and others.

George Carlin on Airport Secuirty : One More Way of Reducing Your Liberty

(hat tip: Lew Rockwell Blog)

World Bank: Freedom and Liberty As Recipe To Prosperity!

The World Bank seems to have experienced an epiphany.

A recent research paper arrives at the conclusion that the formula to social prosperity are through Economic Freedom and Civil Liberties! [my earlier post here shows that economic freedom precedes civil liberties]

What makes this unusual is that the World Bank is a multilateral government agency. This means that the economics of classical liberalism and the politics of libertarianism has been gaining supporters even among government insiders.

Another way to see this is that some bureaucrats and politicians could be seeing the light of the delusions and failures of central planning.

Writes Jean-Pierre Chauffour (bold emphasis mine) [hat tip: Don Boudreaux]

Freedom and entitlement are largely two different paradigms to think about the fundamentals of economic development. Depending on the balance between free choices and more coerced decisions, individual opportunities to learn, own, work, save, invest, trade, protect, and so forth could vary greatly across countries and over time. The empirical findings in this paper suggest that fundamental freedoms are paramount to explain long term economic growth. For a given set of exogenous conditions, countries that favor free choice—economic freedom and civil and political liberties—over entitlement rights are likely to growth faster and achieve many of the distinctive proximate characteristics of success identified by the Growth Commission (2008): leadership and governance; engagement with the global economy; high rates of investment and savings; mobile resources, especially labor; and inclusiveness to share the benefits of globalization, provide access to the underserved, and deal with issues of gender inclusiveness. In contrast, pursuing entitlement rights through greater state coercion may be deceptive and even self-defeating in the long run.

Amen!

Moral Grandstanding: The Dumbing Down of TV Viewers

I hardly watch TV (except occasionally for cable movies and international financial sites) and hardly read local newspapers, unless some events warrant for this.

Having to see some online discussions over an alleged impropriety by a local TV host, I was prompted to read today’s headlines.

To my horror, here is a primetime display of sanctimonious virtuousness!

A renowned Filipina international media artist along with a Solon lectured of the “dumbing down of the viewers”.

From the Inquirer,

“The debate is no longer whether it was child abuse or not,” Wilson said, referring to the widely criticized episode of Revillame’s “Willing Willie” show on TV5 that had a 6-year-old boy gyrating like a macho dancer while breaking into tears for a P10,000 cash prize.

“The facts are plain to see. No one with a sense of respect for another human being can dispute that,” Wilson said.

“The discourse now is how we, as Filipinos, as artists involved in the same industry that created Willie Revillame and shows like his, could have allowed this to go on for as long as it has.”

Acclaimed locally and internationally, Wilson has dozens of productions to her name as actress, director and producer, most famously her lead performance alternating with Lea Salonga in the original West End production of “Miss Saigon” in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

Wow, see that phrase...“could have allowed this to go on”!

The controversial video can be seen here.

Having seen the above, I am quite sure that this doesn’t represent an isolated incident and that there have been many more of these. It’s just that in the past, these alleged immoral acts may have either been downplayed or ignored.

Here is a movie trailer where children dance the OTSO-OTSO—dance steps plastered with “sexual” undertones. The video can be seen here. But where have the moral censures been then?

What’s my point?

The short of it is that all these reek of political miasma.

First, this looks like more of selective condemnation of what looks like a media norm. Many local songs and dance steps have sexual connotations. And they have been performed in various TV programs or movies by children (as the above).

Two, while one may argue that the controversial incident and the trailer are different, which is technically true, this should even expose what seems as even more duplicitous application morality...Trailers are qua advertisement, i.e. meant to promote or sell to the public goods or services (in this case the movie). In short, one could interpret selling amoral behaviour through comedy cum dance scenes to the public. Selling and providing service are two different functions.

So other media programs have the moral license to do this, while others don’t? Who determines which is moral and which isn’t, the Philippine government, the Solon or Ms. Wilson?

Three, this smacks of the extended legal battle between the TV host Willie Revillame and his former employer the ABS-CBN but this time coursed through the public arena, perhaps involving third parties, predicated on moral issues.

Fourth, dumbing down of audiences isn’t just the work of TV programs but of politicians and their accessories in media, as well as, the political cronies who benefit from the current and previous political economic climate.

Dumbing down translates to more political control, more votes and the political appeasement of the underprivileged masses.

History shows that ancient Roman emperors provided free entertainment via gladiator combats and chariot racing and even gave away free bread as a “good way to keep the people of Ancient Rome happy and content with the way the city was being governed.” Moreover Roman emperors used this as a strategy to “keep happy the many unemployed people in Rome.”

See, dumbing down represents an effective political strategy!

Fifth, we go back to Ms. Wilson’s statements.

Again from the Inquirer

Even news reports on TV, she noted, are now “horrifyingly biased and sensationalist,” while noontime variety shows “exploit women and insult our intelligence” and talk shows have become “intrusive, subjective and tasteless.”

When a wife of a politician and two former politicians perform the role as news anchors, who frames the public (through polls) that the only two policy recourse to high (food and oil prices) inflation is either higher minimum wages or price controls—then in this case, I would agree (hands down) with Ms. Wilson, that this represents as “horrifyingly biased and sensationalist”-dumbing down of the audience.

But in contrast to her I wouldn’t even dare imply to impose political control using my sense of morality, or lecture them for their flawed brand of economics, or castigate the gullible audience or voters for buying into them.

That’s because I understand that these grandstanding political demagogues are mostly guided or incentivized by political ambitions (public choice) and the desire to generate self esteem (social signaling) rather than doing genuine social service (which is the work of entrepreneurs).

I would rather say that competition to provide information and knowledge should eventually help determine the truth and expose on the falsehood and pretentiousness from such media based demagoguery.

I would suggest that if Ms. Wilson so indeed desires to help, she ought to put money where her mouth is. And since she is a show producer, she could provide the necessary competition against these inferior, degenerate and manipulative shows rather than just pontificate.

The Filipino consumers, despite their dumbing down, will either eventually see the merits of her quixotic actions or punish her with financial losses.

Ms. Wilson’s comments represents a sweeping indictment not only of the industry but as well as the millions of patrons of the “horrifyingly biased and sensationalist”, “exploit women and insult our intelligence” and “intrusive, subjective and tasteless” shows. She had been unabashed to even say that these shows “insult our intelligence” which seems self-explanatory. (my household help watches some of these shows, so when I have lunch I happen to take a glimpse of these programs, especially the part where girls in skimpy outfits do their renditions--thus, I am partly guilty of Ms. Wilson's accusations)

So whether you agree with her or not, one thing is for sure, she grandstands on her ethical virtues as somewhat superior to the masses (yeah this includes me).

Finally, political grandstanding could be construed as a normal action for politicians.

So when we read from the same article where a Solon proposed that “top ad spenders should sponsor more quiz shows rather than song-and-dance programs that lure in millions of viewers with hefty cash prizes”, I would suggest that this Solon should put up her own private advertisement agency and try to see whether her idealism will be rewarded financially.

Otherwise forcing firms to adapt on what they see as moral, in contrast to opinion of the consumers, is similar to forcing them to close and tantamount to penalizing the economy just to impose their sense of idealism.

In short, restricting people to avail of the option to choose is a form of “slavery”.

The above events are best encapsulated by this poignant and pertinent quote from Michael Bakunin (1867) Power Corrupts The Best (bold highlights mine)

“Nothing is more dangerous for man's private morality than the habit of command. The best man, the most intelligent, disinterested, generous, pure, will infallibly and always be spoiled at this trade. Two sentiments inherent in power never fail to produce this demoralisation; they are: contempt for the masses and the overestimation of one's own merits.”

Confusing Freedom With Collectivism

Sometimes experts are at a seeming loss of what’s been happening in the MENA region.

PIMCO’s Mohamed El Erian at the Reuters writes,

Post-regime change countries, such as Egypt and Tunisia, are working hard to complete their revolutions and to ensure an orderly and complete transition to greater democracy and individual freedoms. Success lies in the following factors: defining a vision and associated action plan which command sufficient popular support; coordinating simultaneous progress on related economic, political and social issues; and implementing appropriate mid-course corrections as needed.

If “greater democracy and individual freedoms” means sovereignty of the individual over government then how does “defining a vision and associated action plan” happen?

Individual “plans” are much different than from those of the central planners, for the fundamental reason that the individual views the world differently and has priorities, values and preferences that are unique, thereby the individuals “plans” according to their perceived ‘unique’ interests. In short, one’s actions are one’s own.

However, since governments are composite of people, except that they are mandated to use the power coercion over the others, then “defining a vision and associated action plan” would be inconsistent with the individual sovereignty.

That’s because so-called “plans” spring from the perspective, values, preferences and priorities of the central planners and not from the collective individuals.

In essence, “greater democracy and individual freedoms” under the above context would represent a sham.

As Henry Louise Mencken once wrote, "For every problem there is one solution which is simple, neat, and wrong."

Economic Freedom Is Key To Prosperity

Great stuff from Professor Walter Williams, (bold highlights mine)

Poverty in Egypt, or anywhere else, is not very difficult to explain. There are three basic causes: People are poor because they cannot produce anything highly valued by others. They can produce things highly valued by others but are hampered or prevented from doing so. Or, they volunteer to be poor.

Some people use the excuse of colonialism to explain Third World poverty, but that's nonsense. Some the world's richest countries are former colonies: United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Hong Kong. Some of the world's poorest countries were never colonies, at least for not long, such as Ethiopia, Liberia, Tibet and Nepal. Pointing to the U.S., some say that it's bountiful natural resources that explain wealth. Again nonsense. The two natural resources richest continents, Africa and South America, are home to the world's most miserably poor. Hong Kong, Great Britain and Japan, poor in natural resources, are among the world's richest nations.

We do not fully know what makes some societies more affluent than others; however, we can make some guesses based on correlations. Rank countries according to their economic systems. Conceptually, we could arrange them from those more capitalistic (having a large market sector and private property rights) to the more socialistic (with extensive state intervention, planning and weak private property rights). Then consult Amnesty International's ranking of countries according to human rights abuses going from those with the greatest human rights protections to those with the least. Then get World Bank income statistics and rank countries from highest to lowest per capita income.

Having compiled those three lists, one would observe a very strong, though imperfect correlation: Those countries with greater economic liberty and private property rights tend also to have stronger protections of human rights. And as an important side benefit of that greater economic liberty and human rights protections, their people are wealthier. We need to persuade our fellow man around the globe that liberty is a necessary ingredient for prosperity.

Professor Steven Landsburg shows 3 charts that arrive with same conclusion: Economic Freedom supersedes civil liberties or Political rights. In other words, democracy is only second to economic freedom.

Says Professor Steven Landsburg,

Political freedom and civil liberties are good things. I endorse them. But as far as human happiness goes, capitalism is an even better thing

Gold And Sound Money

Sometimes I am predisposed to think that gold may be in a bubble, even if I know it isn’t.

This happens when I get feedback of gold’s alleged immutable role as a wealth preservation asset especially in the supposed prospects of an ‘Armageddon’ of either the US dollar or the US economy.

Chart from Casey Research

I don’t know whether gold’s successive rise maybe instilling a false sense of security or may be leading some people to become proselytes or cult followers of the ‘gold bug’ dogma.

However, given that the reactions I get seemingly emanate from false premises, or from the idea that gold functions as an anti-US dollar trade, where in fact gold has been rising against ALL currencies, I think it is more about the former.

In addition, when one becomes an idealist who aspires to share of gold’s ‘wealth preservation’ status as a social mission, it would seem as wrong source of advocacy.

For one, it represents a false belief to think that gold prices as only moving in one direction enough for it to function as an enduring ‘wealth preservation’ asset.

While it is true that gold has functioned as money over many generations, gold has likewise shown periods of volatility as shown by the 650 year chart courtesy of chartrus.com or sharelynx.

In other words, gold like all other commodities is subject to the forces of demand and supply.

The main difference with gold from other commodities is that gold and the precious metal family has demonstrated special qualities (marketability, divisibility, durability, scarcity, high value per unit weight, homogeneity and a stable supply) that have made people reconsider them to discharge of an additional role-money.

Second, the rejuvenated price of gold has mostly occurred after the Nixon Shock or the closing of the gold window in August 15, 1975 that has transitioned the monetary framework from that Bretton Woods gold-US dollar convertibility to the US dollar standard.

Chart courtesy of Wiltontech

The implication is that with the current monetary platform unanchored to commodities, global central bankers and their respective political authorities have been free to inflate on their currencies to meet many unsustainable political agenda. And the repercussions of these actions appear to be coming home to roost.

Thus, the rising prices of gold, not exclusively to the US dollar, could most likely be symptomatic of the escalation of these ongoing inflationist maladies around the world.

And a continuity of gold’s rise would only suggest of further stress in the current US dollar centric fiat standard.

Put differently, rising gold prices may be pointing to a prospective inclusion of gold in the reconfiguration or reform of the incumbent currency architecture. World Bank’s Robert Zoellig recent overtures may be interpreted as a gradual warming of authorities on such a possibility.

The fact that current conditions have been prompting changes to peoples perception of gold, which includes political entities, implies that the gold’s current price trend could reverse once inflationism would be recognized as the source of economic and financial ailments and subsequently addressed.

While the odds of this may be slim for the moment, worsening inflation conditions or the public’s sudden recognition of the inflation tax, may radically alter this mentality.

The point is, it would be wrong to view gold prices as perpetually headed skywards because people act and react based on the unfolding conditions. And the same applies with government policies, policymakers respond to changes in political conditions or sentiment especially when their privileges are under threat.

In short, past performance may not be indicative of future results.

As caveat, this is NOT to say that I have changed my stance on gold as I remain steeply bullish.

The lesson I want to impart is that no asset can be seen as static or even permanently risk free.

Lastly, it would be wrong to worship gold as if contains some mythical powers or deified like the Biblical idol, the golden calf.

The value of gold represents what society perceives it to be.

And if there is anything that gold has symbolized in the past, it is no less than sound money on the framework of economic freedom.

As Ludwig von Mises explained,

It is impossible to grasp the meaning of the idea of sound money if one does not realize that it was devised as an instrument for the protection of civil liberties against despotic inroads on the part of governments. Ideologically it belongs in the same class with political constitutions and bills of rights. The demand for constitutional guarantees and for bills of rights was a reaction against arbitrary rule and the nonobservance of old customs by kings. The postulate of sound money was first brought up as a response to the princely practice of debasing the coinage. It was later carefully elaborated and perfected in the age which — through the experience of the American continental currency, the paper money of the French Revolution and the British restriction period — had learned what a government can do to a nation's currency system...

Thus the sound-money principle has two aspects. It is affirmative in approving the market's choice of a commonly used medium of exchange. It is negative in obstructing the government's propensity to meddle with the currency system.

So any advocacy should center not on the metal itself but on the essence of what gold truly stands for-Liberty and Economic Freedom.

Quote of the Day: Capitalism Ended Slavery

Another gem from Professor Don Boudreaux, (bold highlights mine)

"Slavery was common throughout history until the age of industrial capitalism. Only then did this heinous institution disappear. Slavery was killed by capitalism because that institution puts a premium on creativity, initiative, and good judgment (which even the mightiest slave-master’s whip cannot extract from its victims), and because the ethos that gives life to capitalism – free-market liberalism – is hostile to the ownership of man by man. That the first-to-industrialize English were the first abolitionists is no coincidence.

"In North America, pressure brought by capitalism to end slavery was countered by the very agency that you praise as slaves’ liberator: government. From 17th and 18th century slave codes to the Fugitive Slave Acts of 1793 and of 1850, government in America actively deployed force on behalf of slaveholders. Without this force, slavery would never have taken root as deeply as it did in the U.S. and would have died away sooner and with less bloodshed."