Predatory Lending, Government-Style

Why developed nations must drop third-world debt

As often as demagoguery takes its toll, we see the government doing the exact same thing it condemns with regard to private market actors. While certainly not the sole example of state hypocrisy in this scope, the perpetration of third-world debt, largely brought about by the power hustlers in the wealthiest nations, has left Africa wounded beyond what any man of good conscience can afford to ignore.

A simple law to consider: whenever the government decries any practice of private industry, the state equivalent does vastly more net harm.

And to add insult to injury, the state is often the enabler - if not, the enforcer - of the very same practices it demonizes, in a desperate effort to deflect the blame.

The political left, lusting after government control, bemoans the free market, or even a mixed economy, as a system in which "corporations are people" under law. Obviously, corporations cannot be punished without punishing the very people who represent them, in any given form.

Let's apply the "Uncle Sam" personification accordingly: if governments were people, they'd all be in prison.

I. What is "Public Debt?"

"Public debt" is essentially the denial of private property. Inhabitants of any debtor nation have no personal responsibility for what their governments borrow, regardless of the amount.

The "seen benefit" of third-world debt is the reaccumulation of capital, paid with interest to the federal government. But this money, as economist Murray Rothbard put it, "will simply be wasted, thrown down the rat hole of unproductive and profligate government spending."

Rothbard offers an important distinction between public and private debt.

Most people, unfortunately, apply the same analysis to public debt as they do to private. If sanctity of contracts should rule in the world of private debt, shouldn't they be equally as sacrosanct in public debt? Shouldn't public debt be governed by the same principles as private? The answer is no, even though such an answer may shock the sensibilities of most people. The reason is that the two forms of debt- transaction are totally different. If I borrow money from a mortgage bank, I have made a contract to transfer my money to a creditor at a future date; in a deep sense, he is the true owner of the money at that point, and if I don't pay I am robbing him of his just property. But when government borrows money, it does not pledge its own money; its own resources are not liable. Government commits not its own life, fortune, and sacred honor to repay the debt, but ours. This is a horse, and a transaction, of a very different color.

This is as true of the third world as it is for the United States.

Particularly throughout the 1970s, the US government made loans to corrupt African rulers, when it was commonly understood that they would never be paid back, dooming the citizens within the various jurisdictions to a double-whammy in taxation - one round for their own government, and another for ours. If this is not a form of "predatory lending," logic would permit every private entity facing this charge to declare itself a government, and the charge no longer applies.

But knowing the established definition of "logic" as far as our "leaders" are concerned, it's more of the same. We have to feed the beast that is constrained by no founding document; rather, by what it can get away with. As a result of state-perpetrated predatory lending, so must the third world.

All too often, they feed the beast only to have their land occupied by a foreign military. Its citizens have any promise of a greater standard of living sucked out, all for the benefit of tax-eaters in far-off, wealthy nations. And for what, to buy votes? To harass their citizens? To enforce one needless mandate after another?

As we can plainly see by now,

this debt has a way of enslaving everyday American citizens as well, but on a far lesser scale, to be sure. The borrower is slave to the lender, is it not?

It is interesting to observe the correlation between the government's third-world enslavement and the current fiscal catastrophe at home.

Our current crisis is the result of the state forcing private actors to behave more like them, only to condemn them for following the marching orders. Banks were ordered to give risky loans to those who would not have qualified for them under a genuine free market system. In return - wink, wink - they were essentially promised a bailout if things went wrong.

The mortgage crisis was further perpetuated by the Federal Reserve's easy credit practices, aimed at pushing the interest rates artificially to an all-time low. Moral hazard was inevitible, as banks lent huge loans, enabled via government handouts in the form of new money, hot off the printing press.

Obscene lending with a near-zero chance of ever being paid back?

History repeats itself like a dog returns to its vomit.

We've seen one family after another at home deal with the devastation of losing homes, jobs, and retirement savings; just as families in Africa and the Latin American "banana republics" suffer enormous debts inherited from past oppressors.

It is a curious course of events to see the state rush to demand private debt forgiveness domestically , while scrounging for every dime it can get by maintaining the plight of debtor nations. But on second thought, it is clear who votes and who doesn't.

To properly assert the illegitimacy of third- world debt, we must examine the nature of man, the of the economy, and of the state.

II. Economic Hit Men

In his book, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, John Perkins claims his work as an "economic hit man" involved convincing underdeveloped countries to accept massive development loans from such institutions as the World Bank and USAID. The United States government, Perkins contends, used its lender status to pressure various foreign governments to operate to their liking. He offers a blunt job description of an economic hit man:

Economic hit men (EHMs) are highly- paid professionals who cheat countries around the globe out of trillions of dollars. They funnel money from the World Bank, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and other foreign "aid" organizations into the coffers of huge corporations and the pockets of a few wealthy families who control the planet's natural resources. Their tools included fraudulent financial reports, rigged elections, payoffs, extortion, sex, and murder. They play a game as old as empire, but one that has taken on new and terrifying dimensions during this time of globalization.

As The Economist reported in 2000, "The poorest continent owes the rest of the world a staggering $375 billion, an amount equal to three-quarters of its GDP and nearly four times its annual exports. Half of its governments pay as much per person in debt service as they spend on health and education combined."

If it's so devastating for them, why would governments of developed nations be so blind?

If you have to ask, you must truly believe the state has your best interests at heart. Money talks, and compared to the most influential cronies, you have very little. You won't get a bailout if the government sets your house on fire right before your eyes, but the banksters, the zombie companies, and any other prominent influences will milk the system, as established interests and the political establishment are all but cut from the same cloth.

III. The One-Party System

The two-party system is more or less a one- party system in practice. "Governing mode" is worlds apart from "campaign mode."

While there are differences to be acknowledged, they are mostly rhetorical, if not circumstantial.

Both the neoconservative and progressive movement demand a bigger state. For the right, the magic word is "national security." For the left, it's "compassion." Like a magic wand, these words have the power of depriving any right - whether expressly enshrined in the Constitution or not - of being freely exercised. Whatever the style, whatever the "abracadabra," the end result is the theft of human liberty.

The GOP will stand firmly with their heads thrust high, demanding a Balanced Budget Amendment, so long as a Democrat is President. But the minute they get their hands on Washington, "deficits don't matter." Harry Truman brought us to the heart of the matter when he defined a bureaucrat as a Democrat with a job a Republican wants.

The Republicans position themselves as the party of the free market, at least in rhetoric. Yet, almost nobody stood up for the free market when the Patriot Act was passed. Or when George W. Bush vastly expanded the national security state, and weakened the private economy in the process. Few seem even aware of the economic consequences of a world cop state, let alone, the blowback factor.

Following the 9/11 attacks, the TSA was created, which essentially nationalized airport security. For some time, fear of terrorism was good business for the Republican Party, even if it meant that America's founding principles were compromised, if not outright attacked. The original Patriot Act authorized federal agents to write their own search warrants, which were referred to as National Security Letters. While many recipients of such letters had no reasonable suspicion of a terror connection, they were nonetheless given a gag order, prohibiting them from disclosing any information on the matter.

"Conservatives" made excuses for the same police state they once opposed during the Clinton presidency. And we're supposed to be suprised when the Obama Regime sends the TSA out to grab our junk at the airport?

So typical is the nature of politics. Constituents who favor the party in power will misplace their faith in the regime, delegating yet more power to the ruling class without a second thought that their political rivals will eventually inherit that very same authority, and use it to suit their own interests. Consequentially, they have no right to be suprised when they become political targets.

Private security was not the problem to begin with, and another layer of bureaucracy littered with government incompetence has been no substitute. Pilots and flight attendants were prohibited from keeping and bearing arms on the job by the very same government that is obligated to protect that right. The same constitution that has been roundly attacked in the name of national security, coincidentially, would have prevented the worst attack on American soil, had it been followed.

Stale tax reforms promise "revenue neutrality," which doesn't add up with any political movement that actually seeks to cut government. Republicans are as fond of backdoor taxation as Democrats when it comes to "closing loopholes." That is to say, ending tax exemptions.

The "FairTax" is the scam du jour, which consists of a 23% national sales tax on nearly every purchase (although a variety of taxes are eliminated as a trade-off), along with a dependency check. You know, since the government has done such a great job with Social Security. What is so "fair" about the FairTax, anyways? It misses the point. I thought we were "Taxed Enough Already," and any deviation from that plank insofar as taxation is concerned is a complete and utter waste of time.

"Getting back to the Constitution" will remain a pipe dream, so long as the Sixteenth Amendment provides for the theft of our liberties. It must be repealed - not by a "revenue-neutral" bait-and-switch scheme, but by retaining the maximum amount of capital in the private economy.

The Income Tax is the great enabler of the welfare-warfare state. A phase-out of the three major "entitlements" (Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid), the regulatory apparatus, and disbanding of the many needless US military bases throughout the globe is not only desirable, but necessary in order to make any serious headway towards a genuine repeal, free of gimmicks.

For as short as the Republicans may fall on their claim of advocating a free market, it is the Democrats who have the nerve to calculate any tax relief for high earners as a government expenditure.

Careful, kids - once you start earning over $250,000 a year, the state officially owns the sweat of your brow.

And that's only a critique of the rhetoric.

But to be fair, the Democrats are more honest about their opposition to a free economy. Consequentially, they expect a "thank you" for allowing you to keep some of your income. But again, their arrogance is more upfront. Republicans, by contrast, are like lawyers who insist they are just like any other market actors, as they use the power of the state to pick one pocket after another.

It is a farce, however, to suggest that Democrats (or Republicans, for that matter) are "for the little guy."

The state is the most monopolistic institution on earth. The individual is the smallest minority there is. It is essentially David in diapers and Goliath on steriods. And both parties rob the former to enrich the latter. Follow the money.

IV. Fictions Require Compulsion

Politicians, especially those on the left, associate private self-interest with greed (as though bureaucrats are immuned from both), and supposedly enlighten us with the call for the much-nobilized common interest. But both self and common interest are morally neutral.

Behind every great invention is a self- interested inventor. Behind every Michael Moore comedy-horror film is a self-interested goofball with a video camera. And behind every presidential election, there are self-interested candidates, determined to impose a political agenda on over 300 million people.

People all over the world have a common interest in honoring Martin Luther King, Jr. Church-goers have a common interest in obtaining salvation. HBO subscribers have a common interest in the content that is provided to them. Politicians have a common interest in feeding their cronies.

But there is something particularly devious in railing against self-interest. Keyword: self. The limitations on our individuality. You cannot have self-expression without self-interest. Or self- respect. Or self-anything, for that matter. You are the robot of the collectivist state.

And may I ask who defines the "common interest?" Why, the self-interested political establishment, of course! They get to tell us what our interests are. How sweet of them.

This fallacy is not confined to the political left. When a Republican president decides that it's time to invade another country, who are you to disagree? Why, that would be un-American! I mean, it's in our "national interest!"

"National interest," "public interest," and so on are simply rhetorical variations of the same tactical theme. Politicians and their minions need a herd mentality to get what they want.

There is a mechanical difference in the two, as far as public affairs go. You don't need board of tyrants to compel an individual to act in his own self-interest, because this has already been established through human nature. On the other hand, you must compel the masses to accept the "common interest" if it is not their true will.

Fictions require compulsion, simple as that.

If the state declares it a "common interest" to maximize the US Treasury, then the third world, as well as "We The People," are stuck with it. By contrast, those stuck in debtor nations would be better off if the West respected the self-interest of every individual that suffers from the debts incurred by their government.

The lust for power is virtually without boundary. As with anything else, you have to stop subsidizing it if you want less of it. If the abuse of power (and the potential thereof) is abundantly clear, why not starve the state?

The predatory state intends to utilize every gun, every badge, and every prison cage at their disposal.

Waving an eighteenth-century document around seems to achieve little, if anything (although it is a great way to educate the public and expose the constant abuse of power). Every public official stands before God and takes an oath to uphold the Constitution, but he cannot protect it from himself - nor does he intend to. As far as he is concerned, it's an oath with the wind.

The political profession requires a master of persuasion and self-defensive rhetorical abilities. Just when you think you've put politicians on the spot, they always seem to wiggle out of it. That is not to suggest there are no good examples of stupified "political leaders" caught in an embarrassing moment, but rather, that the limits of their power are held in contempt, no matter what efforts are taken to constrain them.

One thing is clear: the state will not practice what it preaches.

Voters only matter on Election Day. Any other day, they are neglected like children in the woods, left for the beasts to consume. While voters often have selfish motives at heart, nothing compares to the power structure, which is, simultaneously, selfish and powerful.

For the most part, the government can tell its citizens to drop dead. After all, they have the nukes. The threat of revolution - for without, there would be no break from the British Crown - has grown more figurative and less viable by the day.

It is laughable to hear the political profession declared "non-profit," as though this is the great moral distinction between the state and the mafia. I would argue that nothing is truly "non-profit," especially not the so-called "public sector." Surely, there is a motive of self-interest behind every human endeaver, whether the profit is financial or otherwise.

There is one condition where the voices of the voting population actually seems to matter - that is, when the state can enrich itself with the help of useful idiots.

Any state expenditure compromises the private economy, which warrants deep suspicion for all government activity.

The private sector's ability to combat poverty through charity and job creation, for example, is impaired whenever the state seeks to expand, even with the best of intentions. The lines are now blurred between charity and state-enforced theft. Giving is no longer voluntary, let alone virtuous. And in order to aid the poor, the state must enrich middle-class social workers with incentives to get more Americans on the dole.

Obviously, this goes hand in hand with third- world debt, and any other source of revenue, for that matter, because it allows the government to destroy human liberty and reward an ever-increasing base of cronies at everyone else's expense.

V. Cronies Always Come First

Surely, some would argue that the government "needs" to be paid back, and that debtor nations are morally obligated to do so. After all, we have our own debt to pay off.

Let us imagine that the government suddenly found $16 trillion on the White House lawn. Is this really a sufficient enough reason for the ruling class to send the cronies to the back of the bus, and deal with foreign creditors once and for all? I would argue that it would take an embarrassing series of downgrades - and a tireless, irate majority - for the government to even consider casting its agenda aside and making debt a top priority.

Even if a drug addict has other bills to pay, it doesn't matter. You can lend him all you want, but that doesn't mean he'll spend it on anything but dope. And in doing so, what kind of planet are you living in if you expect him to pay you back?

Regardless of party, we've seen one debt hike after another. When was the last time the government lowered the debt ceiling?

If the cronies are faring well while everyday Americans are struggling to make ends meet, will they not become evermore parasitic with a greater public trough?

Third-world debt amounts to pocket change, as far as the US Treasury is concerned. Yet, it is a matter of life and death for many inhabitants of the third-world, stranded in a life of perpetual poverty.

Some argue that dropping the debt would lead to moral hazard, since third-world nations would be encouraged to borrow more as they anticipate debt forgiveness in the future. But this misses the root of the issue, which is heavy lending itself. Moral hazard is the inevitible result of the government's predatory lending practices.

The entire issue of moral hazard could be tossed out with the simple proposition to end lending in its entirety.

Several lessons have been learned on a national level in the past. Slavery, DDT prohibition, the military draft, and forced busing, for example, remain relatively untouchable subjects, for as inept and destructive as the political establishment may be. If these ideas can be stigmatized out of existence due to their uncontestably destructive nature, then why not add a policy responsible for perpetuating world hunger, the AIDS epidemic, needless wars, and the inheritance of grinding poverty to the list, given that it has managed to devastate an entire continent?

VI. Predatory Printing Enables Predatory Lending

Central banking plays a major role in kicking the third world while it's down. Predatory lending, by and large, would not be possible in the absence of a central bank.

While the Federal Reserve Chairman lectures us religiously about the horrors of deflation, loans to the third world almost always have to be paid back in hard currencies. And yet, most of the money loaned by the banks is created out of thin air!

Nobel Memorial Prize-winning economist Maurice Allais minced no words for this practice, stating "The 'miracles' performed by credit are fundamentally comparable to the 'miracles' an association of counterfeiters could perform for its benefit by lending its forged banknotes in return for interest. In both cases, the stimulus to the economy would be the same, and the only difference is who benefits."

Notice how concerned the mainstream economists are about the moral hazard created by the Federal Reserve's currency manipulation, and the lending practices of Gutenberg welfare recipients (in layman's terms, politically well-connected banks) that follow, especially with "too big to fail" bailout privileges and affirmative action laws in place.

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, carelessly mischaracterized as "laissez-faire," suggested in his autobiography: "I was aware that the loosening of mortgage credit terms for subprime borrowers increased financial risk, and that subsidized homeownership initiatives distort market outcomes. But I believed then, as now, that the benefits of broadened homeownership, are worth the risk."

Unlike you, Mr. Greenspan doesn't have to worry about losing his job, or his home, as a painful result of "subprime" lending.

Greenspan aside, was it "worth the risk" to the victims of the ripple effect that followed?

In light of the nasty "recession" here at home, we have to wonder just how many eggs we had to break for this omelet. And what a rotten omelet it turned out to be.

Obviously, the government gets off the hook by replacing the word "predatory" with "subprime" when it is clearly the culprit, although there is no fundamental difference in this context. Call it "outreach lending" if you wish, but the damage is still the same.

Since the primary aim of "quantitative easing" is to artificially reduce interest rates - thereby distorting market signals to attract more investment - then predatory printing must be addressed as a primary enabler of predatory lending.

When a private citizen is caught doing essentially the same thing, it's called counterfeiting. This paradox invites some seemingly ridiculous questions to be asked in vain to justify the double-standard.

Shouldn't counterfeiters also be held up as role models in Keynesian circles? Are some counterfeiters more equal than others?

The government's ability to print money out of thin air is an "invisible tax" to be sure, but the most devious aspect of all is relatively unknown to the common man. This is not suprising, given that the leadership in neither major political party bothers to address it.

Artificial credit essentially puts the economy on a sugar high. The inflationary boom eventually leads to a bust. The longer the boom is sustained through paper currency, the more painful the bust will be. Investors discover - too little, too late - that their projects are unsustainable, and their investments have been squandered.

Without a proper understanding of the business cycle, a reduced interest rate only serves as a false indicator for potential investors, when the rate has been manipulated through "quantitative easing." That is, the artificial expansion of credit. Investors also have no way to distinguish a genuine recovery from an inflationary boom without this knowledge.

Keynesian economists make the grave mistake of viewing interest rates as little more than barriers to prosperity. Consequentially, they believe the state, not market actors, should dictate their course.

The traffic light may serve as a useful analogy for understanding the proper function of interest rates in the ordered marketplace. At an intersection, one street is given the green light, while the others face the inconvenience of the stop light.

Let us envision a chaotic system where a green light is given to every street at any intersection. Here, you are bound to have far more crashes. Drivers who would otherwise be prevented from taking their chances in an ordered environment are now misled by the green light.

Bizzare this may be, the traffic lights serve the same function as the interest rates, as far too many passengers are misguided into driving at the wrong time. Just as it is impossible to discern which street should get the green light, there is no way to determine the real interest rate under a central banking system.

Far from a dispensible annoyance, interest rates are a market signal for investors. A high interest rate - akin to a red light - informs a potential investor to save his money for a better time. A low interest rate - the "green light" - signals a potential investor to act.

For all the rails against "deregulation," it is the central bankers who deregulate the natural order of market signals by manipulating the interest rates.

To be sure, a low interest rate is something that investors certainly enjoy. But when it proves itself as misinformation, they won't enjoy the lie for long.

VII. "Reagan Conservatives" vs. Reagan's Favorite Economist

Nationally syndicated talk radio host Michael Medved routinely dismisses callers who criticize the Federal Reserve with an eager passion, and moves on to tow the next established plank of the Republican Party. It is quite interesting of Medved to do this, given his quotations of Ludwig von Mises in his book, The Ten Big Lies About America, portraying the Austrian economist in a rather positive light.

Mises' greatest contribution to the science of economic thought, strangely enough, was the business cycle theory that Medved doesn't want you to know about.

So it's all well and good to offer a token acknowledgement of Mises, but you're a "Ron Paul kook" if you actually embrace his most important contribution?

It is an ever-greater coincidence that Ronald Reagan's favorite economist, F.A. Hayek - a fellow Austrian economist and intellectual disciple of Mises - won a Nobel Prize in part for his indictment of central banking.

How is it that "Reagan Conservatives" are so quick to marginalize the same school of thought - the Austrian school - that was advanced by their favorite president's favorite economist?

We must then conclude that there is no such thing as a "Reagan Conservative," as far as central banking is concerned.

VIII. A Loan In Your Name

At this point, I must reiterate the crucial distinction between private and public debt.

Let's make believe I show up at your front door in the middle of the night. I inform you that I need a massive loan, and demand that it is borrowed in your name. You refuse, and I pull out a gun. Threatened with your life, you give in.

When a private citizen does this, we call it nothing short of extortion. When a government does it, we call it "public debt." How's that for moral hazard?

As Thomas Jefferson warned us:

I place economy among the first and most important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers to be feared. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt.

Undoubtedly, we've been dealt far too few of Jefferson's intellectual heirs in the political arena.

If Admiral Mike Mullen was correct in asserting that "our national debt is our biggest national security threat," then we must also consider what it means for the third world: an undeniable threat on every front.

If there is a case to be made against an over- bloated government, unjustly enslaving Americans to the creditors in the Far East, then we must offer that crucial distinction between the looted third-world population and the corrupt governments that rule over them.

IX. Why Foreign Aid is Not the Answer

Perhaps with the best of intentions, foreign aid has been widely reconsidered in an effort to alleviate third-world poverty. Proponents call for a Marshall Plan in hopes of getting Africa and other impoverished regions back on their feet. All too often, we judge a policy based on its stated intentions instead of its devastating results.

Bestselling author and economist Dambisa Moyo is all too familar with the harmful side effects that foreign aid brought to her native continent. After years spent obtaining credentials in higher education, and later working for the World Bank and Goldmann Sachs, she concludes that foreign aid must be abolished.

"As she points out," notes Bill Walker, "real per capita income, lifespan, and other measures have actually fallen in Africa while the continent has absorbed over a trillion dollars in 'aid.' Between 1970 and 1998, poverty in Africa rose from 11 percent to 66 percent." Eilis O'Hanlon adds, "[Moyo] demonstrates that African countries which reject the aid route invariably thrive whilst countries which take it end up disappearing into a spiral of corruption and bureaucracy, in which entrepreneurship and democracy quickly die out."

In an interview with the New York Times, Moyo points to the success of the Chinese, who, only a few decades ago, ranked behind many African nations, but have since become the primary predatory lender to our debt-crazed government.

Do you know anybody who feels sorry for China? Nobody... Forty years ago, China was poorer than many African countries. Yes, they have money today, but where did that money come from? They built that, they worked very hard to create a situation where they are not dependent on aid... I believe it’s largely aid [that has held back African nations]. You get the corruption - historically, leaders have stolen the money without penalty - and you get the dependency, which kills entrepreneurship. You also disenfranchise African citizens, because the government is beholden to foreign donors and not accountable to its people.

Since the Bush Administration, both major political parties accept the expansion of foreign aid as a necessary expenditure.

Somehow, we're supposed to believe that today's political establishment is infinitely wiser than its past equivalent of decades prior. You see, unlike the days of Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter, we've produced geniuses like George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Ever since, their "hope," their "change," and their "compassionate conservatism" has inspired an unprecedented level of confidence in our wise overlords.

Do you sense any sarcasm, by any chance?

I mean, if Howard Dean can suggest that he's more conservative with money than George W. Bush, I guess Dubya was pretty "compassionate."

But I digress.

The main problem with aid, we must conclude, is that it builds governments, not economies. There is an alternative, and that is the expansion of free trade.

Bill Walker points to some positive developments in his review of Moyo's bestseller, Dead Aid:

Since the 1990s, another positive trend has been African trade with China and the rest of Asia. Afro-Asian trade has grown at 30% per year. China is now Africa's third-largest trading partner. Moyo also praises the Chinese government's aid programs... they have a record of actually building railroads and roads to facilitate trade, not just buying weapons and Swiss bank accounts for the dictators.

Perhaps some of the most persuasive arguments in favor of free trade came from the late Milton Friedman. Here is a brief transcript of a famous exchange between Friedman and Phil Donahue.

Donahue: When you see around the globe the maldistribution of wealth, the desperate plight of millions of people in underdeveloped countries, when you see so few haves and so many have-nots, when you see the greed and the concentration of power, did you ever have a moment of doubt about capitalism and whether greed's a good idea to run on?

Friedman: Well, first of all, tell me, is there some society you know that doesn't run on greed? You think Russia doesn't run on greed? You think China doesn't run on greed? What is greed? Of course none of us are greedy; its only the other fellow who's greedy.

The world runs on individuals pursuing their separate interests. The great achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus. Einstein didn't construct his theory under order from a bureaucrat. Henry Ford didn't revolutionize the automobile industry that way. In the only cases in which the masses have escaped from the kind of grinding poverty you're talking about, the only cases in recorded history are where they have had capitalism and largely free trade. If you want to know where the masses are worst off, it's exactly in the kinds of societies that depart from that. So that the record of history is absolutely crystal clear: that there is no alternative way so far discovered of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by a free enterprise system.

A lengthly case for free trade appears in Friedman's classic, Free to Choose: A Personal Statement, co-authored with his wife, Rose Friedman:

Another fallacy seldom contradicted is that exports are good, imports bad. The truth is very different. We cannot eat, wear, or enjoy the goods we send abroad. We eat bananas from Central America, wear Italian shoes, drive German automobiles, and enjoy programs we see on our Japanese TV sets. Our gain from foreign trade is what we import. Exports are the price we pay to get imports. As Adam Smith saw so clearly, the citizens of a nation benefit from getting as large a volume of imports as possible in return for its exports or, equivalently, from exporting as little as possible to pay for its imports.

The misleading terminology we use reflects these erroneous ideas. "Protection" really means exploiting the consumer. A "favorable balance of trade" really means exporting more than we import, sending abroad goods of greater total value than the goods we get from abroad. In your private household, you would surely prefer to pay less for more rather than the other way around, yet that would be termed an "unfavorable balance of payments" in foreign trade.

X. Conclusion

The deeper the deterioration of lending standards, both public and private, the less incentive we have to live within our means. This dangerous trend serves only the delusion that we can afford to stay the course.

Government, of course, cannot always be managed in parallel to a private firm.

If outright debt forgiveness is not politically feasible, there is some hope in allowing debtor nations to make ends meet with a generous consolidation plan on the table. This would still be a positive incremental step towards independence, as opposed to the perpetual dependency on the West.

To clarify, there is no pleasure in watering down on principle. That's essentially what politicians get paid to do. Anything short of ending subprime lending from the poor in wealthy nations to the wealthy in poor nations in its entirety leaves room for moral hazard to take shape, and virtues are compromised.

There is no need for a central planner to manage the internal affairs of the recovering debtor nations. The third-world population could reclaim their birthright to private property. Such issues as starvation and disease would then be fought more effectively, as their resources are no longer thieved away by a foreign entity. This could ensure a dramatic improvement in their standard of living.

Before we get too optimistic, there are a few additional factors to consider. First, most third -world debts are to the IMF, World Bank, and various governments worldwide. Secondly, many third-world nations defaulted on their debts in the 1930s. By the 1970s, this lesson was all but forgotten.

While the US government cannot manage the policies of other lenders, we are often seen as a pioneer of ideals. In other words, the United States is often the initiator, leading the way for the "free world." While this "superpower" status is envied, it requires us to initiate virtue.

If we set the trend in debt forgiveness, we may anticipate that other lending nations will follow suit. It must be publicly stated that with the debt relief on the table, we simply will not lend anymore. It may very well lead to more skepticism directed at the IMF and the World Bank; a domino effect may take shape in the most optimistic scenario.

We cannot afford to remain oblivious to the lessons of the 1930s. Rather, the government's predatory lending must be attacked and reviled for the culprit it is. Just as DDT prohibition is held responsible for countless deaths, the lending schemes deserve the same treatment. Unless that happens, we risk falling trap - as we did in the 1970s - to repeating past historical failures.

With regard to foreign debt, a new honor code must be welcomed to shore. As a merciful nation, we should forgive past debts and assume responsibility for preying on those at the mercy of rogue nation-states, under the condition that we never lend again.

Ultimately, the remedy is the open market. This requires knocking down any current barriers that stand in the way of free trade. The US government must allow American firms to hire workers all over the world for any wage that is agreed to. Imports must be welcomed, as any product from the third world deserves the same market test offered to domestic goods. Likewise, American exporters should have access to ship overseas with no fines or penalties. This includes not only commercial interests, but charitable interests as well.

If third-world debt is ultimately the health of the state, and consequentially, the destruction of the individual, it is never too soon to consider the only humble position - forgiveness once and for all.

From this day forward, we can no longer remain a lending predator. If the borrower is slave to the lender, then slavery must be abolished.

Capital Punishment: the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Under what circumstances, if any, should capital punishment be used?

Capital punishment is one of the great moral questions of our time. Some believe it to be an indespensable deterrent, while others counter that it is racially biased in nature, and leads to a two-fold miscarriage of justice if an innocent person is executed.

As usual, extremes are sometimes taken on this issue. Newt Gingrich, for example, has recommended Singapore-style executions for drug offenders. Amnesty International, on the other hand, has objected to capital punishment in all cases, even for convicted terrorists. Some on the far-left dismiss any moral distinction between the actual murder and the execution that follows, arguing that they are equally abominable. Their far-right counterparts have no patience for allowing a convicted death row inmate to live another day.

Others prefer to find a rational middle ground, and believe that the punishment must fit the crime.

There is no doubt that technology has changed the debate. Technology in general, and DNA in particular. Supporters of capital punishment argue that the advancement of DNA ensures a brighter future for the justice system, while opponents have pointed to past cases of wrongful conviction as a result of a DNA finding.

In addition to the technological aspect, the historical and legal aspects must also be acknowledged in order to offer a proper narrative.

From the Colonial period through the early American republic, hanging was the most common method of execution. Burning, crushing, breaking on wheel, and bludgeoning accounted for a small number of executions. The state of Utah even included beheading as a legal method of execution in the late nineteenth century, but it was never used. A black slave accounted for the last person burned at the stake, which took place in South Carolina. Execution by firing squads, the electric chair, and the gas chamber have been, for the most part, put to rest in recent years. Lethal injection is the norm in states that still allow capital punishment.

There may be a bag of riches with regard to capital punishment in cases that did not involve homicide and rape - or anything close.

In 1859, Starling Carlton was executed in South Carolina for aiding a runaway slave. In 1785, Hannah Piggen faced the wrath of Massachusetts for concealing the birth of an infant. In 1852, Theodore Velenquez became the last man executed in California for stealing a horse. In 1785, Joseph Ross faced his execution for an "unspecified" act of sodomy in Pennsylvania.

For as amusing as these examples may be, they also serve to warn us of the potential abuses of power if the law is not confined within reason. In the pursuit of justice, carelessness leads to the creation of a greater monster than the one you seek to destroy, as the abuses of the guillotine during the French Revolution should lead anyone to conclude. If we are to have capital punishment at our disposal, it must be used only to punish the most heinous crimes of aggression.

Opponents of the death penalty often assert that the practice violates the Eighth Amendment, alleging cruel and unusual punishment. This argument is problematic, given that the Founding Generation did not break from common law tradition with regard to capital punishment. In fact, you could be executed for copyright infringement at the time.

The "Eighth Amendment" argument relies on legal positivism, which disregards the original intent of the Constitution in exchange for a "living and breathing" one. In this school of thought, judges make up the rules as they go along, rather than consider the intended meaning behind each clause and amendment. If this is a viable system, then why did the Framers invest so much time bickering over each clause? Why did they have to bother even ratifying the document? Conceivably, they would have saved months of agonizing debate if an ever-changing, self-written constitution, eternally constructed and amended by politically well-connected lawyers accounted for their true vision for the United States.

Perhaps one of the most overlooked legal minds of our time is professor, author, and legal historian Kevin Gutzman. In The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution, Gutzman addresses an overreaching post-New Deal judicial doctrine, known as the "evolving standards of decency."

Probably the most outrageous trend in the capital punishment area was the determination by Justices William Brennan, Thurgood Marshall, and Harry Blackmun in their last decades on the Court that capital punishment always violated the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishments. These three based this determination on the idea of evolving standards of decency - and, predictably, they did not think that Americans at large were nearly so advanced down the evolutionary trail as they were. Critics pointed out that the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment bans on depriving anyone of "life, liberty, or property without due process of law" clearly contemplated capital punishment with due process of law, but Brennan, in particular, insisted that he saw a better way... For a brief period in the 1970s, Brennan and company succeeded in banning capital punishment altogether.

Both sides of the debate point to the economic factors involved. Law and order conservatives express their contempt for the nature of life in prison, which involves keeping a convicted murderer alive and fed throughout the remainder of his natural life. Liberals, perhaps correctly so, counter with the assertion that it costs more to execute a convict than to keep him alive. Depending on the state and its policies, executions range anywhere from $1 million to as high as $3 million per convict.

While it may not be much of a hot-button issue, the gender disparity is a fascinating phenomenon. As of October 31, 2010, men accounted for 98.3 percent of death row inmates, while women accounted for 1.7 percent. At that point, males were subjected to 99 percent of executions, while women counted for 1 percent. If we should address the racial disparity, why not the gender disparity as well? If these numbers were reversed, I can safely assert that no matter how likely the next murderer is to be a woman, the gender warriors would milk this cash cow for everything it's worth.

If we generously gave left-feminists an indulgent concession with gender warfare, the gender disparity question would inevitibly lead to more men standing in opposition to the death penalty, while raging feminists have every reason to "get even" in the cartoon world - or at least protect themselves from dangerous males who rape and kill in this one. This caricature is two-fold to be sure, but it illustrates how phony the "war on women" appears to be.

I will grant that the racial disparity is a legitimate concern. A notably despicable example was the discovery of a training video in the Philadelphia District Attorney's office that advised prosecutors on how to keep blacks off juries.

This obviously goes hand-in-hand with class disparity as well.

As far as Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) is concerned, these considerations were significant enough to reconsider his position. From his bestselling manifesto, Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom...

Rich people when guilty are rarely found guilty and sentenced to death. Most people believe O. J. Simpson was guilty of murder but went free. This leads to a situation where innocent people without enough money are more likely to get the death penalty while the guilty rich people with good lawyers get off. For me it’s much easier just to eliminate the ultimate penalty and incarcerate the guilty for life—in case later evidence proves a mistaken conviction. The cost of incarceration is likely less than it is for death penalty appeals drawn out not for years but for decades.

Also from Liberty Defined...

This is one issue in which my views have shifted in recent years, especially since being elected to Congress. There was a time I simply stated that I supported the death penalty. Now my views are not so clearly defined. I do not support the federal death penalty, but constitutionally I cannot, as a federal official, interfere with the individual states that impose it.

After years spent in Washington, I have become more aware than ever of the government’s ineptness and the likelihood of its making mistakes. I no longer trust the U.S. government to invoke and carry out a death sentence under any conditions. Too many convictions, not necessarily federal, have been found to be in error, but only after years of incarcerating innocent people who later were released on DNA evidence.

It is also legitimate to consider that government is not an institution run by angelic beings. Prosecutors use their legal training in order to score a conviction, and specialize, if anything, in the art of persuasion. The defense is limited to what the defendant can provide for. Sometimes, it's a gang of Johnny Cochrans; other times, it's a dunce that graduated at the bottom of the class. Case in point - in the death penalty case of George McFarland in Texas, the defense lawyer was reported to have fallen asleep repeatedly throughout the trial!

Even the most ardent critic of the welfare state should see the injustice in this arrangement. "Your honor," by the way, seems more appropriate as an affectionate phrase between husbands and wives than to a gavel-banging tax eater in a robe.

There is a case for distrust to be made on both sides. Death penalty opponents ask, "How can the state be trusted to convict the right guy?" Supporters ask, "How can this incompetent government of ours prevent these death row inmates from escaping, and killing again?" Both are excellent questions, but they seem mutually exclusive. There is no clear side for those most fed up with an incompetent government.

The law itself is often written and enforced by those who haven't applied their desired social standards to their own behavior. On one hand, we have the "chickenhawks" - the likes of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Dick Cheney - who advocate non-defensive military intervention, but did not serve on the frontlines as young, able-bodied men. On the other, we have what I might dub "rabbitpigs" - such as Timothy Geithner and Kathleen Sebelius - tax-dodging bureaucrats who wish to impose higher taxes and burdening regulations on their subjects. This is the nature of men in power, and I am willing to concede practically any word of caution against them.

At the same time, we are discussing capital punishment in relation to murder and other heinous crimes, an area where the law does serve a proper role in our society. That said, "under any conditions," Congressman Paul?

While Former Governor Jesse Ventura is well-known for sharing the libertarian views of Dr. Paul, he offers a different position in his book, I Ain't Got Time to Bleed.

How come life in prison doesn't mean life? Until it does, we're not ready to do away with the death penalty. Stop thinking in terms of "punishment" for a minute and think in terms of safeguarding innocent people from incorrigible murderers.

Former Vice President Al Gore offered a similar defense of capital punishment during a Presidential Debate of the year 2000.

I support the death penalty. I think that it has to be administered not only fairly, with attention to things like DNA evidence, which I think should be used in all capital cases, but also with very careful attention. If the wrong guy is put to death, then that’s a double tragedy. Not only has an innocent person been executed but the real perpetrator of the crime has not been held accountable for it, and in some cases may be still at large. But I support the death penalty in the most heinous cases.

While I don't agree with Gore on much, I happen to believe this is the most sensible approach for capital punishment. The deterrent is still there, but the demand for proof based on DNA or video surveillance before there is any possibility of an execution goes a long way to protect the wrongfully accused. It is conceivable to believe that some headway in addressing racial disparity will be achieved.

Most economic aspects of this issue seem to favor the opponents of capital punishment, as do questions of false accusations and racial disparity. And in seemingly transformed and repentant human beings, like Karla Faye Tucker, who at least appear worthy of clemency, there is a point to be made for those who desire a rehabilitation-based system. It may seem strange that Mr. Singapore himself, Newt Gingrich, came to her defense! Should supposedly reformed convicts be executed? The Tucker case is probably the most compelling objection. Stanley "Tookie" Williams, former co-founder of the Crips, ended up writing anti-gang books for children. So if the answer is no, then in what criteria can we determine the eligibility for clemency? The recent pardons granted by outgoing Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour - which included several convicted rapists and murderers - appears to be the strongest case for either a strict criteria, or an outright objection to this well-intended proposal.

The questions of Hammurabian values and a desire to maintain a just and fitting punishment for heinous crimes work in favor of those who support the death penalty (as do the legal arguments). Arguments of moral equivalence, equating the execution of a guilty convict with the murder itself, raise curiosity over how the most contemptible violations of rights are to be handled. If a thief breaks into a home and steals a flat -screen TV, is it just as abominable to take the TV back from him? Do families of the victim have an obligation to accept this rationale? Are they vain for wanting a punishment that fits the crime? And why isn't life in prison too harsh of a punishment, since the convict is forced to live in a prison full of psychopaths for the rest of his natural life? And by taking our "evolving standards of decency" into account, at what point in time will that be considered "cruel and unusual?" Should it be made impossible to deny a man of his rights after he has become an aggressor of the worst kind?

While I have many disagreements with Al Gore, I have to credit him with breaking from the fringe and offering a sensible middle ground on this issue. After all, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

How Technology Will End the Abortion Debate

Examining the evictionist viewpoint of Walter Block

Abortion is among the most controversial issues ever to enter the history of the American political arena. For the moment, it may be difficult to believe that this heated debate will ever reach a satisfactory resolution.

One party identifies themselves as "pro-choice," and believes a woman has an absolute right to reign over her own body. In a typical narrative of this position, abortion is reluctantly included within the realm of this principle. The termination of a pregnancy, they contend, should be safe, legal, and rare. In more extreme arguments, a human fetus is seen as a parasite, especially in the event of an unwanted pregnancy. To demand that a woman carry an unwanted fetus in her womb for nine months, they contend, is tantamount to slavery. Many pro-choicers want to keep abortion legalized, even in the third trimester. Those on the extreme pro-choice position face the difficult question, "what is the difference between a human fetus ten seconds prior to delivery, and ten seconds after?"

Opponents of abortion identify themselves as "pro-life," and believe abortion is an act of violence against a human being. Pro-lifers maintain that abortion violates the most fundamental right of all - life. It is commonplace for a pro-lifer to contend that life begins at conception. This view contends that for the sake of the human fetus, it is an act of personal responsibility to deliver the child, and offers adoption as the compassionate alternative. The most radical among the pro-life movement maintain this position, even in cases of rape, incest, and cases that endanger the very life of the mother. Those on the extreme against abortion fall trap to being anti-abortion, but not necessarily "pro-life," as the conflicts of maternal health are inevitably brought up.

These views may seem irreconcilable, and consistency offers little-to-no middle ground.

As the old Thatcherite saying goes, if you stand in the middle, you will get run over by both sides.

However, there is a view on this issue that is unjustly overlooked. It is known in some circles as "evictionism," conceived by the libertarian social theorist, Walter Block.

Evictionism accepts the basic assertions of both camps - a woman owns her own body, and abortion in its current form is an act of violence against another human being. It applies the non-aggression principle and property rights to the current debate, as these principles serve as a guiding light on many other issues. In Block's view, the unwanted human fetus is a trespasser, and is to be evicted from the womb without an act of harm. Abortion, he observes, is eviction plus murder.

Block contends…

In the present case, it is the contention of this article, new medical technology will "solve" the abortion problem. But this would obtain only if pro-lifers borrow a leaf from their abolitionist forebears. That is, they must work morally and philosophically to pave the way for this eventuality. The thesis of the present article is that, on a pragmatic level, the only way to resolve this vexing question, in a way that will satisfy both sides - at least partially - is to rely on new medical technology. These breakthroughs will, hopefully, allow the pregnant woman who wishes to exercise her rights to free choice one additional option: to rid herself of the burden of bearing the fetus without endangering its life. This is not a pipedream because research in this area is proceeding apace. According to a report in The New Republic, scientists are perfecting a process called "ectogenesis" that allows a fetus to gestate in an artificial womb, separate from its biological mother.

More controversially…

The word "abort" is used in different ways. It is absolutely crucial that a distinction be made between killing and eviction. This future technology would allow the individual to do the one without the other. If and when it becomes possible, the individual would have an obligation, similar to the one owed to the person you woke up in bed with in the attached kidney case, not to kill, but merely to evict. If this were not done, it would be similar to abandoning the baby in the woods.

I seek to "tweak" the case for eviction without harm, given that there are a few pitfalls that our current technological resources cannot provide for. As some of Block's opponents contest, to evict an unborn child without the assurance of a legal guardian to keep it alive is comparable to throwing a rowdy passenger off of an airplane in mid-air, rather than landing the plane. I agree with this assertion wholeheartedly.

Personally, I cannot accept the view that a human fetus is a trespasser. The question we fail to ask is, who conceived it in the first place? In most cases, the woman voluntarily consented to sexual activity, knowing full-well the risks involved. And why is the value of a human fetus so subjective? If a woman wants the child, it's a gift from God. If not, it's a parasite, a tumor, or a worthless body organ, in need of removal through any given means. The characteristics of the fetus are not altered or determined by the mind of a mother.

While some aspects of my personal opinion are certainly debatable, my aim is to broaden the case for artificial transportation (my choice alternative to the phrase, "eviction"), even for those who may dismiss my personal view on life and conception. Maybe you will prefer Block's terminology; maybe you'll prefer mine. At the end of the day, the disagreement is over style, rather than substance.

Some on the political left - such as Jesse Jackson, Dennis Kucinich, and Dick Gephardt, to name a few – seemed to alter their initial stance on abortion to suit the party line, if for no other foreseeable reason. On the other side, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush dumped their formerly cherished notions and adopted the pro-life position. It is also worth noting the factions that seem to break from the reservation on this issue, but otherwise maintain their ideological purity. Among them are Feminists For Life, Republicans For Choice, and Libertarians For Life (although, aside from the Libertarian Party, the libertarian movement has no official stance on this issue).

The remedy for this entire debate consists of time and technology. Just as there are pacemakers for heart patients, "false teeth" for dental complications, and artificial limbs for those who have undergone amputation, I believe an artificial womb will be introduced, as well as a safe and effective procedure to transport the unborn fetus without harm.

As a staunch capitalist, I believe that open markets and profit-driven investments offer the most viable solutions to virtually every social ill, and the abortion issue does not have to be an exception.

As scientists take further steps towards this advancement, we can anticipate the bizzare alliance of pro-choicers and pro-lifers who once donated their resources to NARAL, Planned Parenthood, or the National Right to Life to make peace over the issue by investing towards this common goal. We can also anticipate these current special interest groups to make a desperate case against this as they seem to lose their legitimacy and political influence. And if this crystal ball of mine has a few cracks in it, maybe both will take (or fake) credit for the advancement we should all hope to see.

We might expect National Right to Life and like-minded groups to spend more time stressing personal responsibility than fetal rights in this effort. It may be an archaic and utopian argument, as our social fabric seemed to decline as contraception in all its various forms became the norm, and a sexually permissive society has been the inevitable result ever since.

While the pro-life position has not been exclusively advocated by Evangelical Christians, this faction has undoubtedly become a central political force of the New Right, in addition to a religious one. The influence of Evangelicals over the abortion issue has led some to mischaracterize the pro-life stance as solely religious in nature.

Conservative culture warriors risk losing their audience - as well as a sense of reality - when they call for a "spiritual revival," as though the Fall of Man took place some time in the 1960s, and that five Supreme Court justices have it in their power to usher in that vision. Arguably, the culture indeed experienced a downturn during the Sexual Revolution, but the law - being a separate issue - only followed course. No government entity has it in its power to establish cultural revival. Only the people can do that. I believe the divisions over the abortion issue will be healed - not through a magical government document or a sudden burst of conscience on a national level - but through scientific innovation and the marketplace.

While there is no shortage of lip-service from the political right about our founding principles, there are plenty of times when talk is cheap. When abortionist George Tiller was murdered in a house of worship, I witnessed many conservatives praising the act on an internet forum. Strangely enough, a pro-life organization had been in the process of building a case against Tiller, alleging unlawful abortions. It didn't matter to the murder apologists. Ultimately, we must conclude, neither does due process. Liberals are correctly criticized when they ignore the Constitution. Conservatives, save the small constitutional minority, are just as deserving.

Many conservatives blindly accept abortion as a federal issue, blatantly disregarding the Tenth Amendment of the US Constitution. Ironically, it was the Roe v. Wade ruling that transferred the issue to the federal government! How has that worked out for pro-lifers? State-level restrictions have been repeatedly struck down by the Supreme Court, that's how. Prior to Roe v. Wade, very few states even legalized abortion. Those that allowed it imposed significant restrictions under what circumstances they can be performed. All it would take to transfer the issue back to the states is a majority vote by Congress. Republican demagogues - who rely on this issue to buy votes - have no interest in doing this.

Some in the pro-choice movement have linked abortion rights to environmental pieties, presuming that limits on the human population reduce pollution and the overall carbon footprint. However, consistency begs progressives to apply the same reasoning to capital punishment and pre-emptive warfare, which is unthinkable, to say the least.

This line of reasoning is also economically nonsensical. The greater our population, the more innovation society will experience. More scientists and inventors means bigger steps towards maximizing the value and lifespan of our natural resources.

Those who do not consider a human fetus to be viable - so long as it is undesired – tend to mischaracterize their pro-life opponents as “against women’s rights,” as though the pro-life movement went hand-in-hand with the repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment. It’s a convenient smokescreen to be sure, at least until you are asked to intellectualize the broader accusation beyond the scope of abortion. Indeed, a woman’s privacy should never be violated under any circumstance, unless a greater natural right is at stake. If we could relieve a woman from an unwanted pregnancy without harming the fetus, we would. And we should.

The left-feminists link many “women’s issues” to “social justice.” Small world. I’m a feminist, too.

“Women’s issues” are at the forefront of economic freedom and individual rights, and the left-feminists aren’t connecting the dots.

Should the state be able to force a woman to buy health insurance? Should the government demand her BMI, although it clearly ignores her privacy rights? Should government spend tax dollars harrassing women on how to eat and exercise? Can they strip women of their right to keep and bear arms? Should women be drafted into the military, as Ruth Bader Ginsberg has advocated for? Or conscript them to jury duty in utter disregard for their professional and domestic life? Shouldn’t the state trust women to make the right decision for her child’s education?

You get the idea.

It is also a bizarre development that those who normally decry censorship - at least when the political right is not victimized - would go out of their way to censor pro-life groups. If a fetus was never a human being to begin with, why the shame in seeing a picture of one that was aborted? Often, these same people want to mandate vaccinations on the entire population, and have the government decide who can receive treatment in a state-run health care system with limited means of accomodation. So much for "privacy." Of course, no such concern was raised with regard to the war in Iraq.

The adoption aspect of this issue is not to be taken lightly. In a more perfect world, it would be considered an act of child abandonment. But unlike the utopian inclinations left and right, an evict-to-adopt policy is only advocated as a realistic - albeit, reluctant - way of dealing with a broken world.

Indeed, some personal responsibility is sacrificed whenever a parent gives a child up for adoption. Obviously, more abortions would occur without making adoption available, whether legally or not.

I envision an evict-to-adopt policy where each party involved the conception of the fetus is to make a good faith effort in finding an adoptive family. A private entity may develop in assisting this arrangement. Until this is achieved, the biological parents must cover a form of child support to provide for the upkeep in the artificial womb, including nutritional needs. In cases of rape, a significant tax exemption would be offered to the victim, far exceeding any expense for the artificial transportation procedure, womb hospitality, and nutrition. If the state can force a woman to pay taxes in exchange for her protection, it must be held liable for failing to do so. If convicted, the perpetrator would be on the hook to provide financial support until the child is declared an adult.

If this does not satisfy those demanding personal responsibility at any cost, I’m not sure anything will. If this fails to satisfy those constantly focused on cases outside of “abortion on demand,” I am open to a humane alternative.

Perhaps some "women's rights" organizations will remain outraged as their precious aggression rights are stripped away as the result of scientific breakthroughs and the social implications that follow. Planned Parenthood and NARAL may contend that there are too few willing to adopt, and that abortion must remain an option to make every child a wanted child.

The folly in this argument is two-fold.

Current adoption laws are a barrier to this case, and must be repealed. The bureaucratic red tape drastically restricts the number of willing adoptive parents and agencies to bear fruition. The cost of private adoption can range from $5,000 to $40,000, or more. Much of this depends on the state in which citizens reside. Like a vaccine thrown out of the market, the "cure" does more harm than good.

Social conservatives, of course, will rail about same-sex adoption. To be sure, religious organizations should never be forced to honor it within their jurisdiction, if we are to maintain any concept of religious freedom, whatsoever. Regardless, it is misguided to suggest that homosexuals seeking to adopt are linked to pedophilia, at least in the vast majority of cases.

Would the Judgment of Solomon – whom, according to the Bible, was the wisest man who ever lived – be such a bad example to cite in search for wisdom and civil resolution? After all, Solomon declared a prostitute to be the rightful mother of the child, and allowed her to raise it. As undesirable as that arrangement may have been, it is a broken world we are living in. You can suffer for your pieties as you wish, but an innocent child shouldn’t have to.

On the left side of the aisle, "every child is a wanted child" can be seen as simple demagoguery as we examine the unfortunate issue of crimes committed against children by their own biological parents that continue to proceed. Children are denied basic human necessities in a world with or without abortion. Abuse, neglect, and the like did not cease to exist as a result of Roe v. Wade.

As the old slogans meet their fate, new ones are sure to arise. I cannot predict that which is yet to be conceived, but I can predict one thing - the abortion debate will end, and the eviction debate will begin.

As the scientific advancement is made towards artificial transportation (er, "eviction without harm"), many of the bitter tirades back and forth will die out. At best, the debate will become more of an economic issue than that of a culture war. The left will make the case that government has to devote a massive sum of tax dollars towards this goal, while the right will (hopefully) favor the free flow of capital, more accessibility for adoptive parents, and stress voluntary contributions and free market activity in order to satisfy this achievement. As usual, the real solutions will not come from politicians. They will come from trained scientists and the marketplace.

Sure, one side will accuse the other of being uncompassionate and hypocritical, while the other side will revile the level of government involvement that is demanded.

But both will share a common goal, and that is not the case on today's political battlefield.

Fallacies of "Waterboarding vs. Torture"
A self-rebuttal on waterboarding

As Socrates famously observed, "The unexamined life is not worth living." It is in this spirit that I now critique my own work, from May 04, 2009, entitled Waterboarding vs. Torture.

One obvious benefit to self-critique is that I have very few feelings to hurt - mainly, my own. There is, however, one string attached: I have to knock my previous argument out of the park.

Waterboarding needs very little introduction in the general sense, given the level of controversy it has managed to generate.

Here's the rub:
whether or not we define it as "torture" is irrelevant with regard to its constitutionality. If it is torture, it violates international agreements that the US government has pledged to honor. If not, it still violates Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution, which clearly assigns Congress the authority to "make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water," regardless of executive will.

The Bush Administration clearly ignored this clause, and several members of Congress that now claim opposition did not take a principled stance against it when they had the chance. In other words, it wasn't worth it to Jane Harman and Nancy Pelosi to speak out against it until the political left was forced to cater to their constituents.

Clearly following, rather than leading. And by following, I don't mean the Constitution.

In my prior argument, I listed several gruesome examples of torture to contrast the United States government with notably more despotic ones. While I stand by the contrast in question, I now offer gratitude to the civil libertarians for holding their government's feet to the fire, rather than simply ridiculing their position. It is they who stand as our greatest hope against tyranny, given the federal government will not simply police itself.

The media did not do its job. Neither did the politicians and the Bush Administration. And frankly, neither did I. While I continue to call them out on hypocrisy, it is for different reasons.

I was wrong to overlook the fact that waterboarding has been recommended for those who are merely suspected of terrorism. It is far too great of a power for one man to declare anyone an "enemy combatant," and subjugate the suspect to this method of interrogation. What if he is innocent? How do we deal with a Congress that doesn't even want to allow for a lawyer? How do we know none of these charges will ever be politically motivated, under the guise of national security?

Perhaps my greatest fault was taking the Justice Department and the CIA at their word, as though they are the final arbiters in this matter. We all know where they stand. I even cited sources mentioning their position, and how it is anything but objective.

I now dispute their claim that waterboarding prevented a 9/11-style attack on Los Angeles, since it has been perpetuated solely in the neoconservative media outlets.

If that is "un-American," then consistency forces you to be silent whenever your government tells you what to believe.

Let's see the evidence!

What would we think of a Russian citizen who spent his time citing reports from Pravda and other USSR-run media outlets, in order to make excuses for the government that claims a moral right to rule over him?