The Dogmatic Mosquito

I have the sudden urge to try a new nom de plume.  Let’s see how it fits.

Dogma: an official system of principles or tenets concerning faith, morals, behavior, etc.; a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle.

So far, this new identity fits pretty well.  I will expand on the dogma that is in this mosquito:

1)      I hold to the non-aggression principle as the only proper view regarding the use of force in society; this is based on an absolute commitment to the concept of private property.

a.      The political philosophy that best fits my view is anarchy as described by Murray Rothbard and others who have further expanded on this tradition.

2)      I support fully free markets for all transactions and relationships that are not in conflict with the non-aggression principle.

a.      The economic school that most closely hews to a free market line is the Austrian School.

3)      I believe that for a society to thrive – even survive – that governance (not government as it is known today) is required.

a.      The concept of a society without hierarchy is bankrupt.

4)      I believe this governance is best provided first by family and kin, thereafter extended to church, community, social and benevolent organizations and the like.

a.      The European Middle Ages offers a reasonable example.  There are others.

5)      Voluntary governance is further extended via contract.  The right to contract on any matter is absolute, as long as the object of the contract is not in violation of the non-aggression principle.

a.      Beyond conformance to the NAP, I find it quite dangerous to draw an arbitrary line regarding valid and invalid objects of contract.

6)      Contracts can come in many forms.

a.      Where there is conflict between parties regarding the terms, written terms and/or customary practice take precedent.  Any other view offers only chaos.

When I write about any topic (other than history, which requires facts) – economics, politics, war, libertarianism, etc. – I write based on this foundation.  I have read little of any of the giants – I have come to virtually all of my views on these topics based on my firm conviction on the above items; I modify my views on these topics if I find my views to be in conflict with the above items.

Someday I might conclude that one or more of the above requires modification.  So far, none of the above items have even been at minor risk of getting modified in any meaningful way.

Dogmatic?  Guilty as charged.  However, I don’t think I will change my pen name – it has grown on me.  Just like my dogmatic beliefs.

Send in the Clowns

Don't you love farce?

My fault, I fear

I thought that you'd want what I want

Sorry my dear

But where are the clowns?

Quick, send in the clowns

Don't bother they're here

-        Stephen Sondheim

I haven’t posted anything for several days.  I have remained stuck on a couple of topics, one of which I will attempt to address here.  This will be a somewhat rambling post; I have several seemingly disparate thoughts jumping on top of each other as if they belong together.  Who am I to argue?

This post represents my attempt to make some sense of this – otherwise I will have to face the reality that the voices in my head are winning.

-----------------------------------------------

I didn’t watch any of the recent Republican primary debate.  I saw clips, read bits and pieces.  With every exposure, I was struck by the entertainment value. 

I don’t mean the level of conversation – stupidity dominates all political conversation in the US; this is true for all candidates on that stage just as it will be true for all candidates when the Democrats take the stage. 

I mean entertainment value.  These debates always offer something of entertainment, but this one seemed different.  No doubt, Donald Trump on stage had much to do with this.  Something like “you’re fired” and political theatre find that they are the last two left at the bar at 2 AM, if you get my meaning.  Perhaps we witnessed the product of this liaise?

Cheering – it reminded me of the staged show that is the NFL draft (apologies to my non-US readers and to those readers with better things to do with their time than take note of another virtually meaningless exercise meant for distracting the masses).  Entertainment of a certain type.

Just like the audience in the NFL draft, no one in the audience for the debate knew much of anything about what was being said by those on the stage.  They cheered and booed according to the script given to them by some guy on a talk show or on the TV; they cheered and booed according to their gut – like an animal in the wild driven by nothing but hunger, bordering starvation.

It really didn’t matter if they understood it anyway; those on the stage at best (or worst) had the confidence of ignorant certainty and at worst (or best) had the soul of an indifferent liar.

-----------------------------------------------

It is virtually impossible to keep up with the mess that is US foreign policy.  It was so much simpler when we only had to keep track of the lies told about the Soviet Union (ah, the good old days).  But now?

Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt, Somalia, Syria, Iran, Yemen, Pakistan, Ukraine.  China and Russia.  Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Israel – supposedly US allies all – are they aiding or fighting ISIS?  Where did ISIS come from, anyway?  Are ISIS and al-Qaeda in cahoots or are they enemies?  Iran (an enemy of the US) is supporting Iraq (a mess created by the US) against ISIS (supposedly an enemy of the US).  The Kurds fight ISIS and are fought by Turkey.  Syria fights ISIS and is attacked by…the US, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Israel.

The enemy of my enemy is both my friend and my enemy all at the same time.  Even with a scorecard, I can’t keep track of the players.

Every “solution” brings on three new problems.  It is easy to conclude that new problems are the objective.  Maybe.  But what if no one is in charge?  More precisely, what if the inmates are running the asylum – the bureaucracy is running on auto-pilot. 

Even more precisely: what if the bureaucracies are each running separately, in their own directions and on their own autopilots?  Many different centers of capability – different warlords in charge of their own publicly-funded private war-making machines, each hiding behind the cover of a GS pay grade?  Each supporting or fighting against entities of their own choosing for their own reasons.

I guess it is possible that there is a strategy of “out of chaos, order.”  More often, out of chaos comes more chaos; so far, it has occurred this way.  I suppose either outcome is satisfactory to some sub-set of the countless factions that have virtually sovereign string-pulling power.

In the end, I don’t think the “what if” matters.  There is a real mess, and it is obvious to any thinking person – those capable of critical thinking in the general public (I met one once) as well as those capable of critical thinking in both the US government and (more importantly for where I am headed…I think) in various foreign governments of US allies (and others) – that the actions of the United States are directly contributory to the chaos.

-----------------------------------------------

The chaos is easier for many to ignore when it remains over there.  This problem was solved long ago in the US.  No draft and no tax increases means over there has no impact to over here. 

Fractional Reserve Banking is Fraud

I know, on the surface it seems a stunning statement coming from bionic.  It all depends on the definition of fractional reserve banking, I guess. 

Mr. Engel has provided a definition:

But herein lies the problem: what fractional-reserve banking is, by definition, is a mixture of the two types of contracts expressed above.  It is, by definition, a contract wherein it is agreed upon that the money deposited is a bailment that is to be returned upon demand by the customer; wherein at the same time, that money is loaned out to some other customer.

This certainly could be a definition of fractional reserve banking; I imagine the entire controversy could be quickly put to bed if everyone accepted this definition (spoiler alert; they don’t). 

It is certainly a breach of contract, and could in addition be deemed fraudulent (although I do not like the concept of “fraud” nearly as much as I like just dealing with terms of a contract). 

What you define is not today’s banking relationship – today’s contract is not a bailment.  You seem to agree with me on this if I have read your post correctly.  Please advise if I am drastically off base on this.

I will keep my reply simple and short, as we seem to be making progress and we agree far more than not. 

You offer one definition.  I will offer two others.

From Wikipedia (emphasis added):

Fractional-reserve banking is the practice whereby a bank accepts deposits, and holds reserves that are a fraction of the amount of its deposit liabilities. Reserves are held at the bank as currency, or as deposits in the bank's accounts at the central bank. Fractional-reserve banking is the current form of banking practiced in most countries worldwide.

Per your definition of the term, today’s banking practice is not fractional reserve banking – there is no bailment today.  Yet Wikipedia says that today’s banking is fractional reserve banking, even though there is no bailment.  I don’t get it…. But that’s just Wikipedia, what do they know?

From Mises (emphasis added):

Fractional-reserve banking (or FRB) is the widespread banking practice in which only a fraction of a bank's demand deposits are kept in reserve and available for immediate withdrawal (as cash and other highly liquid assets), whilst the remaining cash is lent out to borrowers (and so is never actually available for immediate withdrawal to legitimate deposit-holders). The bank in effect lends out most or even all of the funds it receives in demand deposits, whilst at the same time guaranteeing that all deposits are available for immediate withdrawal upon demand. Fractional reserve banking is currently legal and practiced by all commercial banks.

Mises.org also says that today’s banking is fractional reserve banking, even though there is no bailment.  But according to your definition, it isn’t – as a bailment is promised in order for your definition to apply.

Today’s practice is FRB, so say Wikipedia and Mises.  FRB is not today’s practice, so says Mr. Engel.

You can understand my confusion.

Nothing personal, but I have never read your definition before – I think until these other sources come around to your view, I will continue to base my arguments and positions on their definitions.

Perhaps you should write the definitions for these entities.

I will be clear (and repetitive): a contract that grants two people the same right to the same deposit at the same time would be illegitimate; it would be deemed an invalid contract. Depending on the details of the situation, it could be fraudulent. 

This is consistent with your definition of FRB, I believe.

Four points:

1)     This is not today’s contract. 

2)     Neither the wishes nor ignorance of the depositor will turn today’s contract into something it isn’t.

3)     Banks today do not practice fractional reserve banking – per your definition above. 

4)     Banks today do practice fractional reserve banking per Wikipedia and Mises.

Items 3) and 4) cannot both be true - banks today cannot at the same time practice and not practice FRB.

There is nothing fraudulent in banking as practiced today beyond the issue of the monopoly – which technically I think isn’t fraud (but I don’t want to spend any time thinking through this right now); it is just the only problem to complain about.

It seems to me that your debate is not with me.  Your debate is elsewhere.

Marriage Rights

My thanks to Laurence Vance.

“Robot-human marriage is not about robot rights; it is about the right of a human to choose to marry a robot.”

Gary Marchant — a Lincoln professor of emerging technologies, law, and ethics at Arizona State University.

This got me to thinking.  If I marry my car, will maintenance and repair be covered by my health plan?  What if I marry my house?  Will my employer have to replace the hot water heater?  A new roof maybe?

It would be best to marry a fixer-upper.  After a few hundred thousand dollars of upgrades, I will get to sleep with (in?) a super-model!

I have always wanted a private plane, but could never afford one.  I wonder if I by a scrap airplane from the desert boneyard – will Blue Cross cover all repairs and refurbishment under “plastic surgery”?

How will left-libertarians respond to all of this?

 

Just wondering.