Why many people believe that government leaves them alone

Bryan Caplan at EconLog has been phenomenal for the last few weeks. 

Here's something on why so many people see government as a force for good, and with the same set of eyes see McDonald's, Mobil, Wal-Mart (or whoever you sell your labor to) as being vaguely evil. 

Good stuff.  Go here to read the whole thing. 

The government very rarely tells me to do anything.  Once per year, the IRS orders me to pay federal income taxes.  Once per year, the state of Virginia forces me to pay state income taxes and get my car inspected.  Once per year, Fairfax County makes me pay property taxes.  Traffic laws aside, the government leaves me alone more than 350 days per year.

How is this possible when the government regulates almost every aspect of American life, and takes 40% of GDP?  The government controls the labor market (especially for foreign workers).  The government decides what products I can and can't buy.  The government runs a massive retirement system that I can't escape without leaving the country.  How can the government control me so thoroughly yet so rarely boss me around?

The answer is simple yet shocking: Government controls me by controlling my trading partners.  Government doesn't tell me to pay sales taxes; it just forces every business in Virginia to collect sales taxes as a condition of sale.  Government doesn't tell me who I can and can't hire; it just tells every business I deal with who they can and can't hire.  Government doesn't even tell me I have to contribute to Social Security; it just requires my employer to make contributions on my behalf as a condition of employing me.

Why is government coercion so predominantly indirect?  Most economists would cite transactions costs.  Bossing CostCo around is far easier than bossing all of CostCo's customers around.  But this explanation is unsatisfying.  Government eschews many cheap ways to directly bully private individuals into submission.  For example, if government really wanted to crack down on scofflaws, it could pay cash bounties to whistleblowers of every description.  Anyone who hired an illegal nanny or failed to pay use tax on out-of-state Internet purchases would have to look over their shoulders day and night.  (Think about how many bounties a garbageman could collect!)  As long as the scofflaws were liable for the fines, an army of whistleblowers wouldn't cost the government a dime.

If this sounds draconian to you, you're in sight of my preferred story.  Governments rely on indirect coercion because direct coercion seems brutal, unfair, and wrong.  If the typical American saw the police bust down a stranger's door to arrest an undocumented nanny and the parents who hired her, the typical American would morally side with the strangers.  If the typical American saw regulators confiscate a stranger's expired milk, he'd side with the strangers.  If the typical American found out his neighbor narced on a stranger for failing to pay use tax on an out-of-state Internet purchase, he'd damn his neighbor, not the stranger.  Why?  Because each of these cases activates the common-sense moral intuition that people have a duty to leave nonviolent people alone.

Switching to indirect coercion is a shrewd way for government to sedate our moral intuition.  When government forces CostCo to collect Social Security taxes, the typical American doesn't see some people violating their duty to leave other people alone.  Why?  Because they picture CostCo as an inhuman "organization," not a very human "bunch of people working together."  Government's trick, in short, is to redirect its coercion toward crucial dehumanized actors like business (and foreigners, but don't get me started).  Then government can coerce business into denying individuals a vast array of peaceful options, without looking like a bully or a busy-body.

Well, I have thought of them as bullies and busy-bodies for about the last ten years.  But I couldn't articulate it as well as Kaplan.  Well said, sir. 

Why Economic Nationalism is a philosophy of war

Here's some Ludwig Von Mises, explaining why Economic Nationalism is a philosophy of war. 

I've long believed that Economic Nationalism (quotas, tariffs, price supports), like most other forms of tribalism, was outright racist but I couldn't quite articulate it. 

You've gotta love this quote:

 Imagine a world in which the principle of private ownership of the means of production is fully realized, in which there are no institutions hindering the mobility of capital, labor, and commodities, in which the laws, the courts, and the administrative officers do not discriminate against any individual or group of individuals, whether native or alien. Imagine a state of affairs in which governments are devoted exclusively to the task of protecting the individual's life, health, and property against violent and fraudulent aggression. In such a world the frontiers are drawn on the maps, but they do not hinder anybody from the pursuit of what he thinks will make him more prosperous. No individual is interested in the expansion of the size of his nation's territory, as he cannot derive any gain from such an aggrandizement. Conquest does not pay and war becomes obsolete.

Go here to read the whole thing.  It's hard to declare war when your soldiers (and their money) and the citizens in "enemy" territory (and their money) are free to move elsewhere. 

ObamaCare in two charts

Here's your first chart, explaining how much your premiums will likely rise.  It was put together by the Society of Actuaries.  (You can go here to read what the sent to the Wall Street Journal editors about our upcoming healthcare debacle.  Good stuff.) 

Here's the 2nd chart, explaining WHY your premiums are likely to rise.  It was put together by some Republican Congressman's staff.  And I bet they had a great time doing it. 

I hope these help.  Don't get sick. 

Nancy Pelosi thinks her cupboard is bare

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who by most accounts is stark, raving mad, is concerned that her budget is going to be cut. 

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi says that while deficit reduction is a laudable goal, there are precious few spending cuts left to negotiate in exchange for raising the debt ceiling.
"The cupboard is bare," the California Democrat said in an interview aired Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union." "There's no more cuts to make."
"We all want to reduce the deficit," she added. "Put everything on the table, review it, but you cannot have any more cuts just for the sake of cuts. Right now you’re taking trophies."

In the words of the prophet Isaiah: "Bullshit".

No cuts would be "cuts just for the sake of cuts".  They would be for the sake of keeping this Statist harridan from putting more of her luxuries on my daughter's bar tab. 

Here are the easy cuts.  These are the ones that a Martian would instantly suggest after looking at our expenses for a few minutes.  This is about enough to balance the budget.  We could save even more by going to a 100% voucher system for education, shutting down the money printing facilities and bulldozing the Federal Reserve.  For the sake of convenience I've ripped these numbers off from John Stossel's site.  The accompanying snarkiness is from my own research, reading, and fantasies. 

 

Defense cut by 2/3: $475 billion.  Seriously.  We almost spend as much on military waste as the rest of the world combined.  And we consider most of the world to be our allies.  (Federal Budget, pg. 58)

 

Medicare/Medicaid*: $441 billion - Healthcare is expensive because of government regulations and subsidies.  Where are the incentives to lower costs if Medicare/Medicaid will pay x-amount 100% of the time?  (Cato Institute)

 

Social Security Means Testing: $170 billion - Social Security started going broke when LBJ raided the fund to pay for Viet Nam.  It's gone.  Let's stop pretending.  Honor existing entitlements with funny money, and left everyone else opt-out.  (Heritage Foundation)

 

Eliminate Dept. of Education (includes Pell Grants): $106.9 billion - The Department Of Education has been an absolute, total disaster.  A stupendous waste of money.  Give it back to the states and be done with it.   (Cato Institute)

 

Social Security*: $85.7 billion - See above.  (Cato Institute)

 

Eliminate Dept. of Transportation: $84.8 billion - The Department of Transportation has made the Department of Education look downright efficient.  It's a venture capital firm for political cronies.  Kill that bastard !   (And when it's time to run a bulldozer through the DOT building, please, please, please let me drive it for just 30 minutes.  That's all I ask.)  (Cato Institute)

 

Tax Amnesty: $80 billion  - Forget Tax Amnesty.  What would be so bad about a Flat Tax?  Calculated on a postcard?  With no exemptions for green energy expenditures for saving medical devices for gay whales?  (Rep. Jared Polis D-Co.)

 

Eliminate Dept. of Labor*: $78.6 billion  - We don't have a department of hamburgers, but somehow, hamburgers are still brought to market.  Disputes between McDonald's and customers still get resolved somehow.  (Department of Labor and White House)

 

Eliminate HUD: $60.8 billion  - Christ almighty, this is an easy one.  Anyone remember the Pruitt Iago housing debacle?  (Cato Institute)

 

Eliminate Dept. of Agriculture*: $33 billion - But if we didn't give money to millionaire farmers, how would the farmers become millionaires?   (Cato Institute)

 

Cut civilian employee compensation: $30 billion - Cut the pay and retirement and bennies to be in line with the private sector.  (Cato Institute)

 

Stop maintaining vacant federal property: $25 billion  - ALLRIGHT, GENTLEMEN, ALL PROPERTY WILL BE SOLD AS-IS, WHERE-IS, WITH ALL FAULTS DULY NOTED!  Who'll give me $900 an acre for this federal wasteland?  YES!! YOU IN THE BACK !!  Do I hear a thousand?  Auction it off.  Put it to work.  (Heritage Foundation)

 

Eliminate Foreign Aid: $21.2 billion - Foreign aid is notorious for staying in the pockets of the foreign politicians whose policies made the foreign aid necessary.   (Cato Institute)

 

Eliminate Dept. of Energy*: $20.8 billion  - God, what a waste that has been. (Cato Institute)

 

Eliminate NASA: $19.6 billion Privatize it!!  If the U.S.'s westward expansion and exploration had been left to NASA, we might have made it to St. Louis by now.  (Cato Institute)

 

Federal Drug War: $15 billion - Let's not just end it, let's prosecute the assholes who are currently fighting it.   (White House)

 

Earmark moratorium: $16 billion  - We almost have that one going on.  Nancy, you win this one.  (Heritage Foundation)

 

Eliminate Fannie/Freddie Subsidies: $14 billion - But.....they've worked out so well !!  How will we re-inflate the next real estate bubble?  (Federal Housing Finance Agency (p. 10))

 

Eliminate Dept. of Commerce: $13.9 billion  - no more junkets to other nations to increase commerce, only to have the Department Of Labor slap tariffs and quotas on the commerce, negating the savings from the additional commerce.  (Department of Commerce)

 

Eliminate Dept. of Interior: $12 billion - Privatize, privatize, privatize.   (White House)

 

Legalize Pot, Online gambling, Immigrants: $12 billion  - Pot is nobody's business but pot-smokers.  Ditto for online gambling.  And illegal immigrants?  People with that kind of drive and ambition are exactly the kind of immigrants we want.  Anyone who will wait patiently in line for 17 years to live in Abbott Tx is probably going to be a drain on society.  (Rep. Jared Polis D-Co.)

 

Privatize Army Corps of Engineers: $10.6 billion - I don't see how their engineers are better tha anyone else's.  (Cato Institute)

 

Cut federal employee travel budget: $10 billion - No, let's END it.  Most of our policy problems have Condi, Hillary and Kerry as their cause.  Keep their butts at home.   (Heritage Foundation)

 

Eliminate National Science Foundation: $7.4 billion  - Oh yes....  Totally cut it from the University system.  Watch the cost of both areas drop like a stone.  And scientific breakthroughs just might increase.  Just a gut feeling.  (National Science Foundation)

\

End EPA’s State and Local grants: $6.5 billion  - Yeah.  It's 90% political. (Cato Institute)

 

Repeal Davis-Bacon: $6 billion - We would have to learn to deal with increased labor competition from black people, but it's the right thing to do.  It's a racist law (See: Davis Bacon Acts) that has consistently produced racist results.   (Republican Study Committee)

 

Privatize TSA: $5.7 billion - Yep.  The current system is an illegal violation of the 4th Amendment.   (Federal Budget)

 

Cut Dept. of Justice’s State and Local grants: $5 billion  - As much as the cops in Waco, Tx might want a tank and a SWAT team, I bet we could be just as safe without that expense.  (Heritage Foundation)

 

Privatize Post Office: $4 billion  - FedEx and UPS are already doing it, and doing it better.  (White House)

 

Eliminate Small Business Administration: $1.8 billion  - The SBA works like this:  Behave like we want you to, and we'll give you someone else's money.  Let's end this one.  (Small Business Administration)

 

Lease coastal plain of ANWR: $1.5 billion - Hell, there's nothing there but ice and snow.  Let's put it to work. (Heritage Foundation)

 

Eliminate Federal Flood Insurance: $1.3 billion  - If the private sector won't insure you're multi-million dollar McMansion on the beach in hurricane alley, you shouldn't build it there.  (CBO, pg. 3)
 

Abolish SEC: $1.3 billion  - Can anyone name a scandal that these guys caught before it became huge? (SEC)

 

Eliminate Corporation for National Community Service: $1 billion - McDonald's, Home Depot, Barnes and Noble, and Gold's Gym serve their communities without the CNCS.  We don't need it.   (Cato Institute)

 

Suspend acquisition of federal office space: $1 billion  - Let there be cubicles !! (Heritage Foundation)

 

End subsidies for public broadcasting: $500 million  - Yes!  If you love NPR that much, you can pay for it!  Yes ! Yes ! Yes !  (Cato Institute)

 

Eliminate the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corp: $480 million - This one's an easy layup.   (Heritage Foundation)

 

Eliminate the FCC: $439 million  -  We've got 900 channels showing infomercials and reality show crap.  Deregulate.  If you don't like what's on the channel, change the channel.  (FCC)

 

Eliminate the Endowments for Arts/Humanities: $332 million - Another easy one.  Ken Burns is now a millionaire.  If he wants to do more documentaries on the role of Black People in the development of Black People's study of Black People, he should try to raise private funding.  It's not that difficult to put a voiceover on Powerpoint.  (NEA/NEH)

 

Total Cut: $1,882,619,000,000

Current deficit: $1,645,000,000,000

Surplus Achieved: $237,619,000,000

 

A few footnotes:

 

Department of Energy is eliminated except for Nuclear arms maintenance

Department of Agriculture is eliminated, except for food programs for the needy

Department of Labor is eliminated, except for 26-week unemployment benefits

Defense budget would still be $243 billion, more than twice what the next highest country (China) spends

Medicare and Medicaid savings breakdown:

Block grant Medicaid and freeze spending (226)

Repeal 2010 healthcare law (87)

Increase Medicare premiums (39.8)

Cut non-Medicare premiums (37.7)

Cut Medicare payment error rate by 50% (28.6)

Increase Medicare deductibles (12.6)

Tort Reform (10)

Social Security savings breakdown:

Price index initial benefits** 41.1

Raise the normal retirement age** 31.4

Cut Social Security disability program by 10% 13.2

 

There ya go, Nancy.  I fixed it for you.  And you'll still have plenty of pork in your cupboard. 

AS I LAY DYING - The Movie

It took me about about eight years to get into William Faulkner. 
That's unusual for a native Mississippian, especially considering that I'll read the label on the salt shaker during breakfast if nothing else is available. 
The first thing I picked up was "The Sound And The Fury", sometime during college.  I got lost in the first chapter. 
Then I tried "Absalom, Absalom".  I was totally defeated.  No idea what was going on. 

Five or six years later, I had the good fortune to manage a Taylors Books location that also employed Charles Lester and Joseph Holt.  They weren't Faulkner scholars, but they set me on the correct path.  Just as you don't learn to read English by dipping your toes into Chaucer, Shakespeare, and James Joyce, you don't learn to appreciate William Faulkner by diving into "Light In August".

Once Charles and Joe got me into the proper order of things, I spent two years of my life reading the stories, novels, screenplays, letters and non-fiction essays of William Faulkner.  In order.  I used Joseph Blottner's two-volume biography as my guide.  Whenever Faulkner wrote something in the biographical account, I hit "pause" on the biography and read the work in question.  It took me two years to complete that project, and another two years to learn to speak English again.  Time well spent. 

Here's how you can understand Oxford, Mississippi's 3rd most famous export.  (Archie Manning and John Grisham are #1 and #2.) 

Read "A Rose For Emily".  It's a Southern Gothic horror story.  Great stuff, and an easy read. 

Then try "Red Leaves".  It was originally published in the Saturday Evening Post, and therefore you should be able to get through it in one sitting.  An Indian Chieftain has died, and tradition dictates that all his possessions (including his black slave) be buried with him.  The slave doesn't want to be part of the tradition, for obvious reason, and escapes.  No one has any heart for the process, or the chase, and this includes the chief's son.  Faulknerian decay before Faulknerian decay was cool. 

This will get you to "Spotted Horses".  Flem Snopes (who could've been the inspiration for Jeff Foxworthy's "You Might Be A Redneck" schtick) and Ratliff the dry-goods salesman both make an appearance at a horse auction gone bad. 

"Barn Burning" is about another Snopes, a tenant farmer/sharecropper who moves from plantation to plantation threatening to burn the barns of his landlords.  (A quick word about the Snopes family - Faulkner and novelist Sherwood Anderson dreamed up the Snopeses in Jackson Square, New Orleans.  They are a stench in the nostrils of everything the Old South stood for.  The Snopeses are too cheap to buy train tickets for their children.  They put luggage tags around their necks and ship them as freight.  Memorable names in the Snopes clan are: Admiral Dewey, Wallstreet Panic, and Montgomery Ward.) 

Ok, that should get you ready for your first Faulkner novel.  I think you ought to start with "The Hamlet".  It's the first volume in the "Snopes" trilogy.  If you've read this website with any regularity since 2007, you'll love "The Hamlet".  White Trash comes to town and threatens the established order of things.  The horse auction from "Spotted Horses" is told from another point of view.  Ike Snopes keeps things Moooooo-ving.  Heh.....

If you've made it this far, try "Sanctuary".  Faulkner needed some money and decided to write a potboiler, and Lord have mercy, he got this pot to boiling.  An Ole Miss sorority girl gets raped by an impotent dude named Popeye.  Popeye uses a corncob.  A condemned felon's hair needs straightening on the gallows. The hangman fixes it for him by springing the trap.  Everyone is drunk all the time.  This is the novel that made Faulkner's literary reputation. 

Then, and only then, should you make a stab at "As I Lay Dying".  Faulkner claimed that he wrote this masterpiece while working nights at the Ole Miss Power Plant, writing on an overturned wheelbarrow.  There are 15 different 1st-person narrators in the fifty-something chapters of the book.  Some of them are stark, raving mad. I know that 2 of my 3 siblings read this book and loved it, loved it, loved it.  Addie Bundren is dying.  Her husband, Anse, has agreed to haul her corpse to her hometown of Jefferson, Mississippi, for burial.  In reality, he just wants to purchase some false teeth there.  The oldest son, Cash, is busying himself building a coffin outside Addie's window.  He wants to go to Jefferson to buy a phonograph.  Dewey Dell, Addie's only daughter, wants to go to Jefferson for an abortion.  Vardaman, the youngest son, just might be mentally retarded, but he gets to narrate as much of the novel as anyone else. 
When Addie dies, the Bundrens have to take Addie through fire and water (with buzzards circling overhead) to get Addie to her final resting place.  Larry McMurtry cheerfully ripped off the last 10% of this novel for the finale of "Lonesome Dove", when Call has to get Gus's reamains through fire and water for burial. 

The actor James Franco has made a movie of "As I Lay Dying".  The early reviews from the Cannes Film Festival are good.  I've long dreamed of someone bringing this book to the big screen, just to see if it could be done.  From the look and tone of the preview, it looks like Franco just might have done it.  I don't see any listings of the film coming to Dallas, but when it does, I'm going to be there. 
I....Can't....Wait.....!!!

 

Jesus and Ayn Rand

A friend of mine sent out a group email about Ayn Rand a few days ago.  The recipients were mostly church members.  Here’s the gist of it…..

A few days ago, (spouse) and I watched a documentary about the life and work of Ayn Rand.  She summed up her philosophy in two words:  objective reality.  Even though her parents were Jewish, at about age 10, she confided to her diary that she was an atheist.   Possibly she used objective reality because, leaving The Soviet Union in 1926, she saw how propaganda and coercion could create false reality and control people.  She abhorred altruism, the idea on which Communism and Nazism were able to function by convincing people that the individual is unimportant, that only the group, the nation is worthy of dedication.  She believed each person should pursue self interest openly without deception.

Is it possible that, when we do something good or charitable, we do so in order to feel better about ourselves, to earn approval of our peer group or, in some cases,  to earn a reward after death?  If true, it would mean the person doing good is acting on enlightened self interest. 

I realize you may consider this silly and unworthy of thought or comment, but if you have any thoughts on Rand's work or this  subject, I would be glad to receive them.   Possibly you will share your thoughts with this group of addressees.

I sent back the following, from Rand’s 1964 Playboy interview:

“My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue.

The fact that a man has no claim on others (i.e., that it is not their moral duty to help him and that he cannot demand their help as his right) does not preclude or prohibit good will among men and does not make it immoral to offer or to accept voluntary, non-sacrificial assistance.

It is altruism that has corrupted and perverted human benevolence by regarding the giver as an object of immolation, and the receiver as a helplessly miserable object of pity who holds a mortgage on the lives of others—a doctrine which is extremely offensive to both parties, leaving men no choice but the roles of sacrificial victim or moral cannibal . . . .

To view the question in its proper perspective, one must begin by rejecting altruism’s terms and all of its ugly emotional aftertaste—then take a fresh look at human relationships. It is morally proper to accept help, when it is offered, not as a moral duty, but as an act of good will and generosity, when the giver can afford it (i.e., when it does not involve self-sacrifice on his part), and when it is offered in response to the receiver’s virtues, not in response to his flaws, weaknesses or moral failures, and not on the ground of his need as such.”

This prompted a few emails about Rand’s atheism, and the vast philosophical chasm that separates Ayn Rand and Jesus.  Here’s a sample, from a guy I genuinely admire:

Ayn Rand was very clear that her personal philosophy is the antithesis of the Christian teaching on selfless love.  She disagreed with Jesus in a fundamental way and made no bones about it.  It follows, therefore, that if Christians are attracted to her philosophy they are either confused, they think Rand seriously misread Jesus, or they see Christianity as a private matter with few moral implications.  I think Rand was right on the money.  The two philosophies are antithetical.  Jesus has my vote.

It went on for a while longer.  Most of the people copied on the email were good church people, all of whom I respect and admire.  I like to think that these are the people who would come to my aid if my family were to get into serious trouble.  I like to think that I would help them out in similar circumstances.  But I started thinking about what Rand said and what Jesus said.  NOT how they’ve both been interpreted, but what they actually said. 
Jesus supposedly said the following, in Matthew 6.  The additional italics are mine, for emphasis:

No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon (money).

Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?

Behold the birds of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much better than they?
 
Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his height?

And why do you worry about clothing?   Look at the lilies of the field, how they grow; they don't work, neither do they spin fabric for themselves:

And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not dressed like one of these flowers.

Wherefore, if God so clothes the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, you of little faith?

Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, How shall we be clothed?

(For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knows that ye have need of all these things.

But seek first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

That's kinda intense. 
Don't worry about what you're going to eat or drink. 
Look at the birds.  They don't grow crops, but God cares about them and provides for them.  Aren't you better than they are? 
Consider the flowers.  They don't work.  They don't make fabric, or anything else, yet they're more beautiful than Solomon! 
 

Here’s Matthew 5:40 – 42:  And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away your coat, let him have your cloak also. And if someone forces you to carry his load for a mile, go with him for two miles. Give to him that asks upi, and from him that would borrow of you, turn not him away”.

Translated: If the damn lawyers take away your jacket, let 'em have your overcoat also.  If someone forces you to carry their load for a mile, go ahead and put in two miles.  GIVE to anyone who wants what you have, and if someone wants to borrow from you DO NOT turn them away. 

Luke 14:12-14: “Then said he also to him that asked him, When you make a dinner or a supper, call not your friends, nor your brethren, neither your kinsmen, nor your rich neighbors; lest they also ask tyou again, and a recompense be made thee. But when you make a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind: and you shall be blessed; for they cannot recompense you: for you shall be paid back at the resurrection of the just”
 
Don't have family over for dinner.  Ever.  Never, ever, ever.  Always feed the street people first. 
 
Now.... Compare Ayn Rand's statements on charity with those of Jesus.  I only know of one Christian who lives his life according to the statements of Christ quoted above, and most people think the guy is stark raving mad.  Maybe he is. 
 
Everyone that I know, and I mean everyone, Christian or not, tries to maintain health and life insurance, and keep up their house payments.  They try to get educations so they can provide for themselves and their families.  I've never seen anyone go into debt so they can feed more strangers, and I've never seen a robin drop worms into every nest in the forest. 
 
The average yearly income on this planet is $6,000 per person.  I've never known any follower of Christ to give away his stuff until he had less than that.  Ayn Rand advocated giving to people you feel like giving to, but only if it's not going to put you at risk.  Jesus taught that we should sacrifice ourselves, our stuff, and our security. 
 
In short, there has been an ongoing battle in the Christian church between the philosophy of Ayn Rand and the philosophy of Jesus. 
 
Ayn Rand has won it. 

American Exceptionalism

Vladimir Putin took to the pages of The New York Holy Times a few days ago, bent Barack Obama over his knee, and gave him a firm spanking.  Most of Putin's editorial was about Syria, but some of it addressed the issue of "American Exceptionalism". 

Here is Putin's money quote:

 I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.

Yeah, France thinks that is exceptional because of the French food and lifestyle. 
Italy believes that it is exceptional because Italians have the misguided belief that no one else in the world can make decent wooden chairs. 
The Chinese pictogram for "China" literally means "Middle Kingdom", as in "China is halfway between earth and heaven", which is taking exceptionalism to the next level. 
Great Britain believes that it is exceptional because it really used to be exceptional, and ruled half the globe from a few buildings in London. 

Here's how Wikipedia defines "American Exceptionalism":

American exceptionalism is the theory that the United States is "qualitatively different" from other nations.  In this view, America's exceptionalism stems from its emergence from a revolution, becoming what political scientist Seymour Martin Lipsett called "the first new nation" and developing a uniquely American ideology, "Americanism" based on liberty, egalitarianism, individualism, republicanism, populism and laissez-faire.  This ideology itself is often referred to as "American exceptionalism."

IMHO, here's the only thing that has ever made the USA exceptional - the opening salvo from the Declaration Of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

We are exceptional, and have prospered, and gotten richer than the founders could've imagined, because our government was founded on the idea that government is to serve us, and not vice-versa.

We have the right to Life,

Liberty,

and the pursuit of Happiness (not a guarantee, but we can sure chase it and occasionally run 'er down.)

 It's not our insane foreign policy that makes us exceptional, it's not about us being Jesus's favorite tribe, and it's not about our willingness to go to the Lands Of Brown People and blow up their wives and children. 

We have certain rights, and the government is supposed to acknowledge them - Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.  Whenever the government is "destructive of these ends" it is the "Right of the People to alter or to abolish it".   

The current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue believes that we are a collective, and that there is such a thing as "Group Happiness" and this plays hell with those of us who march to a different drummer. 
He believes that we have the right to organize, to confiscate, to re-appropriate, and to transfer property. 
He believes that we have the right and responsibility to abide by the will of the majority, no matter how harmful the majority opinion reveals itself to be. 
He believes that we have the right to bomb other nations (in an "incredibly small" and not time-sensitive way) in order to please our military contractors. 
He has no concept of the difference between democracy and liberty.   

Barack Obama's idea of American Exceptionalism is radically different from anything that might have made us exceptional in the past.  We are now buried in debt, we are governed by con-men, and we now have to read accurate and timely lectures from KGB strongmen in our paper of record.

We are on the path to becoming the next Bulgaria.  American Exceptionalism was nice while it lasted.   

Tarrant County Libertarian Meetup, Thursday Night at Fort Worth Food Truck Park !!

Food Trucks. The police harass them. Brick and mortar stores don't like them. Tax collectors are frustrated by them. And consumers LOVE them!

An entrepreneur has found a compromise by creating the Fort Worth Food Park, a small enclave that holds about a dozen of these rolling restaurants until they're finally free to drive at will about the city, committing acts of agricultural capitalism.

 So is this not the perfect spot for an Libertarian Party Meetup??? ...

The Tarrant County Libertarian Meetup is going to get together at the Fort Worth Food Park, 2509 Weisenberger Street (behind the Target Shopping center near Montgomery Ward Plaza and West 7th Street) on September 19th at 7:00 p.m.

In addition to eating some great food with great people, we'll have Robert Harris, who is running for the State House nomination for District 94 give us a quick talk about his campaign, why he's running, and how you can help.

Stay tuned to this page (or the Tarrant LP Facebook page) if we have bad weather. The Fort Worth Food Park is near the 7th Street development, and we'll go somewhere in that area if it rains.

The trucks scheduled to be there on the 19th are: Holy Frijole, Life is Sweet, Sauzy, The Que, Three Lions, and What's Cook-N Chef. Good food. Good people. Good Libertarian Party politics !! Hope to see you there.

 

 

Putin And Obama Go For A Horsey Ride !!!

This might be the greatest Photoshop in the history of digital manipulation. 
Obama in his bike helmet and Mom pants, going on a nice relaxing ride with the dude from the KGB. 

 

There's no way to rule innocent men

There's been a lot of rejoicing amongst my pot-smoking friends because of Attorney General Eric Holder's decision not to enforce some of the existing marijuana possession laws. 

I take an opposite view. 

The best way to get rid of bad laws is to enforce the hell out of them. Create some outrage.  Giving prosecutors the authority to pick and choose which laws to enforce gives them the authority to pick and choose which groups to favor, and that is a bad, bad thing. 

"Prosecutorial Discretion" works like this: You want to build a warehouse.  The government inspector in charge of plumbing finds that your contractor has violated some bullshit rule about plumbing.  The inspector agrees that it's a bullshit rule, and he ok's pouring a bunch of concrete on top of the pipes and drains that make up the plumbing system.  But he always, always, always makes a note that your plumbing broke the law. 

At that point, he owns you.  If you raise hell with City Hall about anything for the rest of your life, or if you contribute to the mayor's opponent, or if you want to simply fight some other ridiculous law,the plumbing inspector can waltz in and insist that your rip up the concrete in your warehouse and repair the plumbing that isn't up to code.

The same thing happens with those possessing marijuana.  They let you slide with small amounts, but they make note of it.  You have broken the law.  You think that you're ok with The Man, but you aren't.  Not even close.  The next time you try to fight a zoning ordinance, protest a war too loudly, or run for office, they've got you.  You were found to be in possession of an illegal amount of marijuana. 

They own you !! 

Here's one of Ayn Rand's villains in "Atlas Shrugged" explaining the concept:

"Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

 There's no way to rule innocent men. 

 

The Recent History of The Middle East

Sent by The Whited Mama:

 

Al-Qaeda is no longer the enemy. We're not really sure who is the enemy. Oceania, maybe?

Last night, the President of The United States appeared before us to say that he was asking Congress to delay a vote on his proposal to carry out a military action that is "incredibly small" and whose timing doesn't matter, against an enemy who is also fighting other people who are our enemy, with no defined objective, no follow-up, and no defined goal. 

In other words, within two weeks we could be working as Al-Qaeda's Air Force*

*stolen from Dennis Kucinich

Nudges that I would like to see

Nudges are the big thing this year.  Instead of legislating that people do the “right” thing (in the eyes of our bureaucratic overlords) people are now being nudged. 

"Nudge" is a verb meaning:

1.push or poke somebody: to push or poke somebody gently, usually with a motion of the elbow

2.move something: to move something gently, especially by pushing it slowly and carefully

 

Here’s the New American:

In an effort to “nudge” Americans to support bigger and more intrusive government while changing behavior to suit the whims of the political class in Washington, D.C., the Obama administration is following the lead of U.K. authorities by building what the White House refers to as a “Behavioral Insights Team.” According to an official document about the scheme aimed at recruiting personnel, the controversial team will be charged with prodding the U.S. population to think and behave in ways that officials deem best on everything from "sustainability" to health and education.

Whereas a traditional Nanny Stater might demand that we recyle, and penalize those who don’t, a nudger might hand out free in-home recycling containers, literature on how much we save by recycling, and prizes for kids who experiment with recycling at the Science Fair. 

 

 

 

Another example: some employers beg, cajole, threaten and scare employees into participating in the 401K retirement plan.  At Jukt Micronics, we take a different approach…..  We sign up everyone, and then send out a memo stating that if you don’t want to be on the 401K plan, you have to fill out some paperwork.  In this case the nudge is a slight hassle to do the wrong thing. 

Here are a few nudges that I would like to see in place, and a few wouldn’t even require major legislation, but they would move the citizenry toward liberty.  (Of course, anyone wanting to remain a slave to the 20500 D.C. zip code inhabitants should be allowed to remain in bondage.) 

 

1)      Federal Income tax should be paid by the individual, not withheld by the person who happens to be purchasing labor from that individual.  If we get to hold the money in our fat little hands before it is sent to Washington to blow up Syrians, imprison black pot smokers, and subsidize failing schools, we are more likely to vote for smaller government.  Employers who want to continue to act as Obama’s bag man should be allowed to do so.    

 

2)      Federal income taxes should be paid once a month.  I really like the idea of 60 million American households pulling out the checkbook on October the first and writing a check to the Treasury.  And then doing it again on November the first.   And December the first.   And January the first.  Every month, you gotta write Barack a check.  (There’s a reason that election day and tax day are currently as far apart as possible.)  If households have to write a check each month, they’ll see The Teleprompter Jesus’s “investments” in green /education /infrastructure bullshit in a new and exciting way.  They would be more likely to vote for a different ” investment”  broker.  Preferably one who would leave them and their money alone. 

 

3)      We are currently in a Two-Party Death Grip.  The thumbs are the Silly Party and the fingers belong to the Stupid Party.   There are people in the Stupid Party who would be willing to vote for a 3rd Party candidate (like Gary Johnson), but they’re afraid that it’ll just help the Silly Party win.  And vice-versa.  If we had a system of approval voting (hit the link), Sillies, Stupids, and Libertarian Sluggards could vote for multiple candidates in each race, and the highest vote total would win.  It would end the “wasted vote” fallacy.  Until we do something to break the Two-Party Death Grip, we’re going to get the government we deserve.  This would cost nothing, it could eliminate expensive primaries, and voters would have a real choice instead of the lesser of two lessers.   Imagine a ballot with Barack, Hillary, Newt, Mitt, Rand Paul, Gary Johnson, a Green, a Constitutionalist, and anyone else who could get signatures or ballot access.  I might vote for Gary and Rand and the Constitution guy.  Someone in favor of debt slavery and war might vote only for Obama and Newt.   The single candidate with the highest total wins. 

 

4)      Current legislation is usually presented to the public with a price tag, but none of these price tags have a due date.  Wouldn’t it be nice to see  “to be paid in full no later than 12-31-2013” on a spending bill?  Along with some language detailing where the money would come from?  Do you think that might nudge politicians and voters to be more realistic? 

 

5)      I’ve written before about how my employer, Jukt Micronics, has achieved an astonishing level of racial diversity by the simple expedient of wanting to make a whole lot of money.  The Federal government tries to accomplish this goal by threatening to sue your ass until it glows like a Japanese power plant.  We should nudge employers to hire a wider assortment of minorities by ending all anti-discrimination “protections” for two years.  I promise that employers would be more likely to hire blacks, browns, gays, women, old farts and the handicapped if they couldn’t be sued for replacing the employee if the relationship went bad.  Money is one of the greatest nudgers ever, and if you don't discriminate regarding things that really don't freakin' matter, you have a much better chance of making a pile o' money. 

That's all I got.  Go ye therefore and nudge. 

 

Help Kickstart World War III

Libertarian, Quite Contrarian - by Caroline Gorman

My friend Caroline Gorman posted this on Facebook the other day.  It's about how some small government types will sometimes use symbols from the Confederacy, just to show that they, too, are rebelling against Washington.  Or are being iconoclasts.  Or just want to be controversial. 

I went to a school whose fight song was "Dixie".  I started playing that song (drums) in marching band in the 5th or 6th grade.  Then I went to Ole Miss, where the fight song was "Dixie".  Transferred to Delta state, where the fight song wasn't "Dixie", but we played it a lot just because we were in.... Dixie. 

For the benefit of the Brits, Aussies and Kiwis who visit this site, "Dixie" was the fight song of the Rebel/Confederate army during the U.S. Civil War. 

I played the drum part to "Dixie" after every touchdown, field goal, extra point, blocked punt, and kickoff for about 12 years.  I've played it in parades and during basketball games.  Some level of racial sensitivity kicked in about 1984, shortly after I left school, not just at Ole Miss, but at colleges across the deep south, and you never hear the song any more.  Therefore, I think I may have played the pro-slavery war song "Dixie" more times than anyone now alive.  I've also carried my share of rebel flags, so I was interested in Caroline's take on Confederate symbols.  (BTW, now that I've put away that childishness, you won't catch me within 20 feet of a rebel flag.  Symbols don't mean what you think they mean.  They mean what OTHER people think they mean.) 

Here's Caroline:

Background: Jack Hunter, director of social media for Senator Rand Paul, was ‘outed’ in mainstream news outlets as, variously, “a fan of the old Confederacy,” (Slate), someone who said “John Wilkes Booth’s heart was in the right place,”[1]“anti-Lincoln,” (Chris Hayes, both) and related slurs. It’s unclear why this became news now, since Jack Hunter’s past as an outrageous radio personality named The Southern Avenger is certainly no secret. In any event, all of these slurs were taken as indicators of the number-one accusation: that Jack Hunter is a racist.

In response to this, libertarians jumped in to defend Jack Hunter. My Twitter and Facebook feeds were crowded with libertarians who wanted to assure me that they’d “never met a nicer libertarian” than Jack Hunter, that he was “a pillar of the libertarian community,” a “real lover of liberty” and most importantly, a nice guy. Or at least, he had been nice to his white fellow libertarians. Then came the proliferation of articles in his defense. A post on Lew Rockwell added some venom, as usual, but nothing substantive, again as usual.

But the most stereotypically libertarian – and flagrantly wrong reaction – was fromTom Woods and his scathing article on ‘Sweetie Pie Libertarians.’

Tom Woods’ argument reads as a brilliant, brave stand for intellectual freedom against ‘zombies’ and other intellectual light-weights. He begins with a blazoning “Now there are perfectly good reasons one might have to oppose the Lincoln regime.” And then he lists several. Then he turns his attention to the Sweetie Pie Libertarians, those who cravenly rush to be in the good graces of “Mr. Nice Media Person, sir.” These Sweetie Pie Libertarians are “policing the thoughts” of the brave, noble libertarians, in a cowardly, backward attempt to be “more attractive.” These Sweetie Pie Libertarians are just caving in to public opinion. Fortunately, we have big strong brave men like Tom Woods to stand up to the Establishment and tell it like it is!

Tom Woods, answer me this question: What does wearing a luchador mask with the Confederate flag on it have to do with a rational, intellectually honest exploration of the historical issues concerning the advent of the Civil War?

Answer: Absolutely nothing.

Jack Hunter’s use of Confederate symbolism had nothing to do with bravely questioning standard histories. He was taking a side in identity politics – and on the side of violent racists and bigots (note: even if, for some reason, you think that the Confederates weren’t violent racists and bigots, note that in the 150 years since then, that symbol has been used by violent bigots from the KKK to the murderers of James Byrd, Jr., - which means that symbol is now a symbol of racism).

I thank Tom Woods for his article. He entirely missed the point about why Jack Hunter should not work for a politician, or anywhere that he has a chance to put his racist views into action, but he did highlight another problem in the libertarian community.

He exemplified the‘Libertarian, Quite Contrarian’ Syndrome.

What is the "Libertarian, Quite Contrarian" Syndrome? It presents in the form of people who, if told to do one thing, will do another. These people are more predictable than zombies. Zombies at least have desires of their own (well, one desire: delicious brains). The Contrarian Libertarians don’t know what they want until they hear what they’re not supposed to want. They are individuals! They do what they want! Which is always, without fail, the opposite of what you are telling them to do.

Libertarian, libertarian
Quite contrarian
How does your movement grow?
When they say yes, you say no
They go left, you go right
Always spoiling for a fight
They say up,
you say down,
Turn that argument around!
They say red, you say blue
You can’t tell me what to do!

How is this relevant to the Jack Hunter situation? Jack Hunter, and the libertarians who support using Confederate imagery, just want to do something controversial. They want to use that word because they’re not supposed to. They want to say inflammatory things. And they want to pretend it’s brave.

Using Confederate imagery has nothing to do with historical revisionism, with individual rights, with states’ rights, with anything libertarian. To use the Confederate flag is to prove, supposedly, that you support freedom – by using a symbol of a time when human beings were enslaved.

Instead, using the Confederate flag is a perfect example of the dark side of individualism: relentless contrarianism. This contrarianism has nothing to do with questioning standard histories (perfectly admirable), taking a moment to reconsider childhood lessons (absolutely necessary) or understanding that few issues areas clear-cut as we would like (I wish more people understood that).

The use of Confederate symbolism which has swirled around the libertarian movement and the more populist elements is only a base childish desire to do something ‘naughty,’ dressed up in libertarian colors. Let’s stop protecting these people just because they know enough to use the language of liberty to justify their immaturity.

The irony is that being a Contrarian Libertarian is about as anti-individualistic as you can get. It also involves the same actions they so disdain in the mainstream media: race-baiting, kneejerk reactions instead of measured debate, and a profound acceptance of authority.

Because if you’re wearing the Confederate flag to prove that Civil War historical revisionism is necessary, you have lost. You have let the mainstream media put you in one of two boxes – for or against the Civil War. For or against the Confederacy. If you want to dislike Lincoln, go for it. If you want to question the cause of the Civil War, go for it. But accepting that questioning the traditional account of the Civil War equates to supporting the Confederacy (and wearing a flag is a pretty blatant symbol of support) is accepting their rules.

Why don’t you take the unusual third position of opposing the Civil War and opposing the Confederacy?  Of exercising your intellectual freedom to question the traditional Civil War narrative while also refusing to emotionally ‘take sides?’ That would be truly individual, and truly unusual!

Caroline K. Gorman is the Chair of the Travis County Libertarian Party in Austin, Texas. She also serves on the State Libertarian Executive Committee and is heavily involved as an activist at the local level.

Did Jimmy Carter create the Beer Boom?

There's been a little storm "brewing" (LOL) on the internet about whether Jimmy Carter's deregulation of the beer industry led to the incredible diversity of brew that we now have in the USA. 

There may have been 5 or 6 varieties of beer in the convenience stores of my youth. 

Fifty year later, the typical Stop'n'Shop now carries about 75 varieties of beer, most of which you've never heard of. 

Here's Eric Kain of Balloon Juice:

If you’re a fan of craft beer and microbreweries as opposed to say Bud Light or Coors, you should say a little thank you to Jimmy Carter. Carter could very well be the hero of International Beer Day.
To make a long story short, prohibition led to the dismantling of many small breweries around the nation. When prohibition was lifted, government tightly regulated the market, and small scale producers were essentially shut out of the beer market altogether. Regulations imposed at the time greatly benefited the large beer makers. In 1979, Carter deregulated the beer industry, opening the market back up to craft brewers. As the chart below illustrates, this had a really amazing effect on the beer industry:

Here's your chart. 

Good stuff, right?  We deregulated, little guys brought competition to the marketplace, and a plethora of brews were brought to a thirsty public.

 Here's what Reason magazine had to say on the subject:

I personally find it particularly meaningful that government and industry and (I presume) anti-drinking scolds colluded to criminalize a behavior that wasn't just victimless, but downright awesome; and that the removal of that appalling bit of illiberal nannyism helped usher in a phenomenon I would have bet the house against two decades ago: a thriving and variegated American industry of delicious beermaking.
And given that, what's wrong with making deregulation a "starting point"? (A concern of the original article) Imagine for a crazy moment a world in which the default expectation would be for government not to flop its grotesque belly onto the forehead of various industries, not to meddle in the affairs of pre-pubescent drink vendors, not to redistribute $20 billion a year (give or take) of our money to mostly well-heeled agriculture companies just to make sure they don't face competition from poor people. I'm not talking about no regulation here, but rather the idea that if such-and-such activity isn't hurting anybody it shouldn't be subject to governmental micro-managing, license-imposing, winner-picking, and even arrest.
One of the common misconceptions about libertarian enthusiasm for deregulation is that it's some kind of (presumably paid-for) philosophical cover for wanting the very richest Corporates to be even richer. Speaking as a libertarded conspiracy of one, my favorite bedtime deregulation stories are about stuff like beer, air travel, and talking about politics on radio and TV, where after you lifted restrictions that in retrospect sound like they came from another planet, people do what the normally do when left alone—create all kinds of interesting new artifacts, businesses, and even ways of life. Regulations so often piss me off because they so often fall disproportionately on the backs of the little guy, while the big guy—even/especially the one whose misconduct precipitated the regulation in the first place—walks off with a well-lobbied exemption. Generally speaking, the fewer activities are illegal, the freer us opposable-thumbs types are.

Damn.  I wish I'd written that!

But wait....there's more. 

After publishing some of these findings about Jimmy Carter's involvement in the beer boom, James Fallows had to issue an in absentia retraction for Mr. Kain, based on the research of a reader namedTom Hilton:

While I have immense admiration for President Carter, and would love to see him get the credit he deserves for all sorts of things (and who knows; now that Obama has officially supplanted him as History's Greatest Monster, maybe he will), but E. D. Kain's claim that Carter "deregulated the beer industry" (in Kain's words) is grossly inaccurate. What Carter did sign was HR 1337, which legalized homebrewing "for personal or family use, and not for sale"--'deregulating' individual, not commercial, behavior. The legalization of homebrewing did contribute to the growth of the craft beer industry (according to Charlie Papazian, 90% of the pioneer craft brewers started out making homebrew), so President Carter certainly deserves credit for that...but it just as certainly isn't "beer industry" deregulation. 
IMO, the step that really touched off the craft beer explosion was the legalization of brewpubs in various states--WA and CA in 1982, OR in 1983, with others following shortly thereafter. This is consistent with the graph, which shows a leap in numbers from 1979 to 1989 (meaning the growth could have started at any point during that decade); according to the American Brewers Association, the low point was 1982, meaning the turnaround actually began in 1983 (not 1979). Also: of the 1500 breweries in existence today, 2/3 are or began as brewpubs.

That would change everything, wouldn't it?  There's a huge difference between homebrewing and operating a brewpub and operating a full-blown distillery. 
So Eric Kain, who started the discussion, jumped back in. 

Your reader is quibbling over the definition of deregulation. Removing a barrier to entry to any market is an act of deregulation whether or not access to the market is direct or indirect.

If, for instance, people were not allowed to bake their own bread without a license from the government and strict adherence to a number of regulations, then this would effectively crowd out a lot of people who would otherwise become bakers. One doesn't need to legalize the sale of home baked bread in order to deregulate the bread market, they simply need to legalize the baking itself which provides people with basic access to the craft as well as to the supplies necessary to pursue that craft. Likewise, regulating away home bakers would also crowd out a lot of suppliers who would otherwise provide baking goods and information to home bakers. Soon only bakeries with access to lots of cash and influence would have any market share at all, regardless of whether or not smaller bakeries were legal.

The same phenomenon applies to home brewing. In the pre-Carter days there was little or no access to home brewing supplies, very little knowledge base for do-it-yourselfers to draw from, and far less experimentation with home brewing, making it effectively impossible to gain entry to the beer market for non-corporate brewers. Carter's deregulation essentially stripped away all these barriers to entry, making it possible for a number of people who would otherwise not have entered the market to do so. Did deregulation of brewpubs also help lead to the craft beer explosion? Certainly. But as your reader notes, 90% of craft beers began as home brews. Without Carter's deregulation, the brewpubs themselves would never have taken off. 90% of the craft brews we now have would never have existed. Even if this didn't allow home brewers to directly sell their beer in the wider market, it allowed them to gain the skills and information necessary to do so.

Removing these barriers to entry can rightly be understood as deregulating the beer industry. It's just semantics to suggest otherwise.

My head is starting to hurt from trying to figure this out.
 
Here's what I do know.  Somewhere, based on this Tempest In A Brewpot, the deregulation of the beer industry brought diversity and competition to the market.  The same thing happened in the airline industry, the deregulation of my own trucking industry, and in every other area where nanny-staters, busybodies and other parasites have decided to get the hell out of your way.  And Jimmy Carter had something to do with it. 

The guy is still alive, you know, but nobody will ask him exactly what happened because once he starts talking he doesn't stop. 

Freedom is good.  As long as you're not hurting anyone else, your freedom is a good thing.  Heck, it's a great thing.  It's the most undervalued asset on this planet.  Nobody planned on me being able to drink a Shiner in a East Fort Worth bar this afternoon.  There is no beer czar.  Therefore, the beer industry isn't screwed up. 

We do have a Drug Czar, an Education Czar, and for all practical purposes, a Healthcare Czar, and therefore those industries are as f***ed up as a soup sandwich. 

Let's deregulate healthcare and education.  We have no idea who will step in to make us happy for less money.  And in the meantime, raise a Shiner Bock in praise of Jimmy Carter, and thank the gods that we don't have a beer czar.