Skip to content

Obsessive Shortsightedness of Power-Grabbing Politicians

I’m listening to all these panicky pols and their little minions on the radio, in the newscasts and the talk shows. All these chicken littles can think about is their neurotic little political strategizing. You see, government is the structure by which anyone can steal from his neighbors and get away with it. Having a government with monopolies of functions and the power to “legitimately” steal from the people is the means that everybody can steal from everybody else. The Republicrat Party clowns are afraid that their parasitism might have to end.

The existence of that centralized government in Washington causes many people to think only in the short-term. With a collectivized treasury that contains funds stolen from the workers and producers of society, it is the government piggy bank that the short-sighted ones want to get their hands on. Never mind saving for the future, never mind watching one’s budget because there will always be something for you even if our rulers have to borrow from future generations. Which is what they’ve been doing.

In such a system the time preferences of the people are very short-sighted. Hans-Hermann Hoppe has asserted that such a present-oriented society of government theft of private wealth and government violations of private property rights engenders the de-civilization of society. Hoppe discusses those themes in his great book, Democracy: The God That Failed.

Time preferences, by the way, are yet another politically incorrect subject to discuss, as Hoppe found out the hard way.

In this very important article, Prof. Hoppe discusses the time preferences of those being ruled in a democratic society in which the government is “publicly owned.”

The imposition of a government tax on property or income violates a property owner’s and income producer’s rights as much as theft does. In both cases, the owner-producer’s supply of goods is diminished against his will and without his consent…

As well, any government regulation as to what an owner may or may not do with his property — beyond the rule that no one may physically damage the property of others and that all exchange and trade be voluntary and contractual — implies a “taking” of somebody’s property, on a par with acts of extortion, robbery, or destruction. But taxation, the government’s provision for liquidity, and government regulations, unlike their criminal equivalents, are considered legitimate, and the victim of government interference, unlike the victim of a crime, is not entitled to physically defend and protect his property.

Owing to their legitimacy, then, government violations of property rights affect individual time preferences in a systematically different and much more profound way than crime. Like crime, all government interference with private property rights reduces someone’s supply of present goods and thus raises his effective time-preference rate. However, government offenses — unlike crime — simultaneously raise the time preference degree of actual and potential victims because they also imply a reduction in the supply of future goods (a reduced rate of return on investment).

Crime, because it is illegitimate, occurs only intermittently — the robber disappears from the scene with his loot and leaves his victim alone. Thus, crime can be dealt with by increasing one’s demand for protective goods and services so as to restore or even increase one’s future rate of investment return and make it less likely that the same or a different robber will succeed a second time.

In contrast, because they are legitimate, governmental property rights violations are continual. The offender does not disappear into hiding but stays around, and the victim does not “arm” himself but must (at least he is generally expected to) remain defenseless. The actual and potential victims of government property-rights violations respond by associating a permanently higher risk with all future production, and systematically adjusting their expectations concerning the rate of return on all future investment downward.

By simultaneously reducing the supply of present and expected future goods, then, governmental property-rights violations not only raise time preference rates (with given schedules) but also time-preference schedules. Because owner-producers are — and see themselves as — defenseless against future victimization by government agents, their expected rate of return on productive, future-oriented actions is reduced all-around, and accordingly, all actual and potential victims become more present-oriented.

Because of the way the system is now, even “conservative free-market” politicians such as Ted Cruz and Rand Paul have been promoting worse tax schemes such as the VAT in addition to merely rearranging the tax structure to appear that they are lowering the people’s taxes while they keep the taxes high. The thought of making trillions in cuts and eliminating whole parts of the federal government is frightening even to those “conservatives” who are afraid of losing votes from whatever interest group might lose out when a whole department or program is abolished. Those politicians’ craving for votes to keep them in power is their own short-term, present-oriented time preference to continue their own parasitism at the public trough.

And we saw in 2008 how important it was to siphon off billions more in tax-stolen dollars to bailout the big banks, to keep the gravy train going. Now, the short-sighted, immediate-gratification oriented Establishment hacks are supposedly afraid that a President Trump will end their gravy train for them. And no, a President Trump will do nothing of the sort. But the hacks are acting like it’s the end of the world, and they say they would rather have Hillary as president.

The only politician in my memory who has recognized the failures of socialism and central planning and actually proposed to do something about it (get rid of it) was Ron Paul.

So Hoppe’s description of the publicly owned government and society’s present orientation is a good explanation of why Ron Paul was criticized for his proposals of cutting massive government waste. In response to Herman Cain’s “9-9-9” crapola, Ron Paul replied, “0-0-0”! Dr. Paul seems to have been the only one to recognize the moral hazard of the socialist government monopolies and redistribution schemes we have now.

Here is Dr. Paul explaining such issues very well in what I think was one of his best interviews, in 2010.

So I think in all the 2016 Presidential “debates” the discussions have degenerated down to catering to the lowest common denominator, no real solutions to the financial and economic problems, only name-calling and threats of physical violence. America is going to Hell in a handbasket and it shows, big time now.

And just listen to all the talk radio hysterics, some so concerned that Hillary might get elected they’ll hold their nose and vote for Trump. And others saying they will never vote for Trump.

Everything now is dependent on this election, the most important ever!

No, it’s not. These politicians are all the same, and Trump is just another one of them, an ignorant authoritarian gasbag who will be just as dangerous as Hillary will be, and just as Obama and Bush have been.

Oh, and they are acting the same way with this Supreme Court vacancy, and Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to fill it. Listen to the schmucks in the Senate saying that they will not allow a vote on it until after the election. Meanwhile, President Hillary’s nomination might very well be much worse. (Think Ruth Bader Ginsburg on steroids.) So perhaps it could be in their own interests to just let Judge Garland get the damn spot. It doesn’t matter anyway, since the Justices (sic) all vote (at least 99% of the time) against the rights of the individual and in favor of the government’s power and control.

When the society is dependent on 9 lettered imbeciles to decide whether or not the people may have their freedom, that society is probably doomed. (Ya think?)

By the way, on NPR Jamie Gorelick mentioned that Judge Garland is “red-green colorblind, so he has a list of which ties go with which suits.”

Huh? “Red-green colorblind”? Does that mean he doesn’t know whether to “go” or to “stop”? How many accidents has he caused? (Just askin’.)

However, given how scheming the Obama-Sanders-Clinton social agitators are, Obama could be nominating the prosecutor-sympathizing Garland as a way to lure the Rethuglicans to approve him for the High Court, toward the Left’s goal of disarming the civilian population. It appears that he is not good on the right to keep and bear arms and the 2nd Amendment. The Left loves a good, heavily armed government police state and a weakened and defenseless civilian population, just as much as the conservatwits do.

So, when it comes to long-term planning vs. shortsightedness, the Left plans their schemes for decades toward a final, future goal. (Albeit not a goal for the good, that’s for sure.)

If there are hearings for the Supreme Court nominee, let’s hope that Senators ask Judge Garland what his thoughts are on not just the right of the people to keep and bear arms, but if he believes they even have a right to defend themselves at all. I’d like to see Senators ask these nominees questions about their actual philosophies, their views on natural rights, due process, etc.

Here is a U.S. Senator asking questions regarding self-defense of then-Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan in 2010 (Kagan, the die-hard socialist who opposes free speech and who had been running for Supreme Court since high school), yes that Elena Kagan.):

Published inUncategorized