What is Aleppo?

If I hear one more assertion that Gary Johnson has "an alarming lack of foreign policy knowledge," I might just snap. Comments like these undoubtedly stem from a couple gaffes in which Johnson didn't recognize the name of Aleppo, and then couldn't name a foreign leader he admired. (Some say he also didn't know the name of North Korea's leader, but in this case he declined to answer--possibly tired of playing Trivial Pusuit!)

On that second point, I was watching that town hall, and he did have a foreign leader in mind--Vincente Fox--but completely blanked on the name. I forget people's names all the time, and would argue that anyone who says this has never happened to them has never been put on the spot on television. In any case, I don't blame him for not really having any LIVING foreign heads of state he admires (that was the stipulation of the question).

But I digress. This particular post is about the Aleppo gaffe. I see so many people mocking him and making the assertion that he's an idiot because of this. I get it, it's fun to think you're smarter than a presidential candidate, as if he somehow managed to work his way through college, grow his business to employ a thousand people, and then be an extremely successful and popular governor of a state, all while suffering from severe cognitive impairment. Riiight.

Not to rain on everyone's parade, but I really don't think Aleppogate meant he was unaware of the situation in Syria. Firstly, I watched that interview, and he went on to discuss the situation just fine after the gaffe. Secondly, as you can see in this story published in 2012, Gary Johnson has been talking about Syria for years, and his views in 2012 reflect he had a good grasp on what is going on.

Unfortunately, it's a lot more fun to ridicule a man for not knowing something than to attribute the gaffe to a momentary lapse or, as he says, basically misunderstanding the question. Recent evidence of certain news agencies colluding with the Clinton campaign could also suggest that this was spun intentionally, but we can stick with "oops, the reporters didn't do their research." It's almost sad that either of those is completely believable. #RIPJournalism

Secondly, let's pretend for a moment that Gary Johnson really didn't know what Aleppo is (again, we'd have to ignore the fact that he has spoken about Syria previously). I would argue that that is not disqualifying, even without taking into account the egregious flaws both of the mainstream candidates possess.

To illustrate my point, let's imagine that during the next presidency, a brand new crisis arises in a country most people here have never even heard of. Do we care more that the president had former knowledge of this place, or that they apply correct principles to the new situation? Do we assume that, when asked to make a decision, he/she will be expected to do so in a vacuum, or would they be advised by experts on the matter?

In this hypothetical situation, what would Trump do? It probably depends on whether he has business interests in the area. I actually haven't heard him speak coherently on foreign policy--beyond a strong theme of protectionism--so I really wouldn't know what to expect.

And what would Clinton do? We can almost certainly expect some sort of intervention, whether it is drone strikes, boots on the ground, or sending aid to one side of the conflict. The problem with this approach, other than that it is costly and may put American lives at risk, is the inevitable unintended consequences. ISIS is a prime example of this. It also causes tension with other countries, as with our meddling in Syria.

To be fair, Hillary's reaction would probably depend on whether one side of the conflict had donated to the Clinton foundation, so we can't know for sure what she would do.

I can confidently say that Johnson would exercise restraint when it comes to intervening in foreign conflicts or crises. He may employ economic and diplomatic strategies to influence the situation, and if we're attacked directly of course he will attack back, but otherwise he will not be involved with what he calls "foreign regime change." We can also trust him not to be deterred by conflicts of interest.

Not sure of Gary Johnson's foreign policy approach? Check out his address at University of Chicago.

The bottom line is this: if we care so much that our leaders have all the knowledge going into office, then maybe we should be giving them college-level history and geography exams during the vetting process, or engage in a Geography Bee instead of debates. The absurdity of this idea reflects the ridiculous reasoning behind it.

If, instead, mere knowledge is not more important than principles and ideas, then I suggest we stop getting so hung up on how our candidates do during media pop quizzes and start worrying more about what kind of judgment they will have in office.

Greed is still not the problem

Wrote this 7 years ago today, and it's still relevant. Actually I believe Hillary made some comment during the debate that the subprime mortgage crisis was caused by greed.

Greed was a part of it in the sense that it is a part of everything, but we can't fall for this rhetoric designed to divide people.

Instead, let's look at what led up to the crisis. The government decided that home ownership is a good thing, and created various incentives to own a home (like tax breaks). At the same time, they created incentives for banks to lend more, especially to lower-credit families (for example, quotas). This created a bubble--more people were buying than really could afford it, and more loans were available than was really prudent.

At the same time, the banks were taking on more risk than they really wanted to with these subprime mortgages, so they devised a way to spread the risk around, by bundling the mortgages together in a pool and then selling off little bits of them. Kind of like insurance--a single person is risky, but when you have a bunch of people paying in, they balance each other out. The problem was, doing this with loans was a new thing, and people didn't know how to accurately price and measure the risk--so firms loaded up on these instruments thinking the risk was much lower than what it was.

Meanwhile, in order to be able to offer these subprime mortgages at a cost the borrowers could afford, they offered variable rate mortgages starting with a low rate. Some call this predatory lending. I think the banks were caught between the government wanting more subprime lending, and good business principles saying they need to charge a higher interest rate for higher risk loans.

So when the interest rates started resetting to much higher rates, big surprise, many of the families couldn't pay. So they defaulted, and large percentages of these "pools" became worthless.

ANYWAY, long story short, yeah greed played a role in that. People trying to buy more than they can afford is greedy. Banks making money off of people so they can keep their doors open is greedy. And politicians wanted to be reelected and feel good that they did something "for the people" is also greedy.

But notice that without that last component, this wouldn't have happened. Banks would have been greedy enough to reject the lower credit borrower, or offer them a higher interest rate to offset the risk. People would have been greedy enough to reject the higher interest rate and rent a few more years, or get a smaller place and borrow less. Yes, fewer people would have bought homes, and more would have had to come to terms with the fact they simply couldn't afford the house they wanted yet (which I think is better than buying it only to be kicked out when you default), but there would have been no bubble, no bailouts, and possibly no recession.

So I say, the next time the government offers to help us cut corners and do things the easy way, our response should be "no thanks"

Why Bother?

I haven't written anything in a long time – partly because I've been working on the launch of our new website, RevereLiberty.com, but also because politics can be exhausting. If you've ever wondered why I bother writing these articles, then we're in accord.

Firstly, politics takes time – to research, to write coherently, even to be informed. Secondly, it's unpleasant, which probably explains its exalted position as one of the three taboos of polite conversation. Thirdly and finally, it often seems futile.

Why read and think and talk about politics only to end up, not only frustrated and angry, but also no more equipped to do anything about it?

That line of reasoning certainly stands up to logic. Putting so much effort into politics offers no immediate reward – on the other hand, it does introduce the risk of offending or losing the respect of loved ones.

Moreover, it's a difficult battle. Unless you're selling 'change you can believe in,' you can't merely tell people what they want to hear. From what I've seen, most people would rather indulge in wild rationalizations than accept basic principles of liberty and personal responsibility.

So why bother?

If everyone follows the same logic, then we can only expect our problems to worsen. People will continue to vote away the rights and money of others – including their posterity – but we will have done nothing to oppose this injustice.

That makes us accomplices to the robbery of our fellow countrymen and our children. Wealth redistribution is just organized thievery, whether we're taking it from 'the rich' using income taxes or from future generations using ever-growing public debt.

If that's not enough for you – if you have a higher purpose that makes stealing seem justified – then consider the fact that what we're doing as a nation also is not sustainable. In other words, ultimately, it will affect all of us – not just 'the rich' or our successors.

The more we destroy productivity by punishing achievement, the fewer 'rich people' we'll have to loot. The more free money we offer, the more 'poor people' we'll have dependent on the government. The more debt and IOU's we pile on, the more interest payments we must make and the sooner that debt turns becomes unmanageable.

People understand this in their personal lives – otherwise parents wouldn't bother encouraging their kids to work hard, go to college, and balance the budget. A good parent wouldn't wish financial ruin on his child, so why would he wish it on the entire nation?

Because he doesn't understand, or he is deluding himself – either way, that is why it's important to get involved. Eventually, the delusions will have the same effect on the country that we would expect them to have on our personal lives.

And although the United States is 'too big to fail,' you can bet the farm no one will be there to bail us out.

Greed

I've always been mystified at how readily the public seemed to swallow the notion that the entire housing crisis, credit crunch, and ensuing recession were caused by greed.

Here is an articulate analogy I got from one of Thomas Sowell's columns: greed is like gravity – it's a fact of life, and blaming greed for anything that is going on now, or indeed anything you don't like in the free market is like blaming gravity for a plane crash.

Sure, if there were no gravity, the plane wouldn't crash; however, we cannot remove gravity from the physical world any more than we can banish greed from human interactions. People are hard-wired to act in their own best interests.

Any sane person's explanation of a plane crash would probably focus on whatever caused the plane to fall from the sky – not on the universal force that hundreds of thousands of flights defy each day.

By the same token, millions of Americans greedily go about their business every day without causing terrible disaster.

All of the routine decisions we make about money each day – choosing which credit card to use, if any, deciding whether to rent or buy a home, searching out the cheapest gas prices (if only by a couple cents), and so on – are properly motivated by the ubiquitous desire to obtain and preserve wealth: in other words, greed.

Therefore, it simply does not stand to reason that greedy behavior can cause major disasters like the subprime mortgage crisis. If it could, crises like this would be commonplace. Instead of labeling the current problem as the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, it would merely be the worst since last year.

Clearly, greed fails to explain the whole story, and we should be skeptical of anyone making such claims: either they are misinformed, or they are trying to divert the conversation from the realm of reason to the realm of emotion and gut-reactions.

Here is a funny example of the artful use of rhetoric against greed:

Greed is just one of those words that push people's buttons, and I believe it is invoked to stoke the embers of class warfare in people's minds. Condemning the rich as greedy gives us 'ordinary folk' a false sense of self-righteousness: we might not be as wealthy, but at least we weren't greedy like those jerks on Wall Street.

However, this sort of reasoning, if it can be called that, reeks of jealousy – which is ironic because if we didn't desire more wealth (in other words, if we weren't greedy), we would have no reason to be jealous, or even to care about another person's greed.

For a society that values freedom, we cast an awful lot of blame on the free actions of free people, and that blame does nothing to explain the reality of the situation.

Here is my suggestion: the next time you find yourself in danger of being swayed by the rhetoric of self-righteousness and altruism, stop and ask yourself what your life would be like without the greed of others.

I cannot think of a single (material) thing in my life that I devised and built on my own.

That means other people invented and put together all the things that I enjoy in my day-to-day life, from my computer to my comfy bed and favorite slippers, to my car. The couch I'm sitting on, the clothes I'm wearing, electricity, running water – all possible because of the volition of other people, motivated not by altruism but by the reward that comes from producing something of value.

In short, my life is unfathomably better and easier because of: the resourcefulness that enables people to create, and the greed that motivates them to produce more than they need for themselves.

The Bright Side of Health Care Reform

Every iteration I've seen of the health care legislation has been a lot like the junk food we Americans love so much - chock full of the things people like, but practically nothing that would actually be good for anyone.

Although total government takeover is not on the table (yet), by setting up insurance companies to fail while simultaneously driving up costs (one of those nasty side effects of increasing demand of medical care without increasing supply), our public servants in DC can bet on us crawling back to them to 'fix it' sooner or later.

So the question is not whether the path we're on leads to government-run health care, but when. If, like me, you're a fan of liberty - and our very high standard of living - that realization might seem a little depressing.

However, as with many things in life, there is indeed a silver lining to this (hurricane) cloud. Being the optimist that I am, I like to try to look on the 'bright side of life,' so here it is:

When we arrive at government-run health care, we can undoubtedly expect 'free' medical procedures, at least the ones approved by the government. If our friends in Washington really want to fix all of our problems – as they promise – all they would have to do is make sure that surgeries altering the connections to the prefrontal cortex are fully covered and accessible to everyone.

That's right – the answer is FREE lobotomies for everybody!

Imagine the possibilities: all those dissenters and naysayers, all those rowdy individualists could be relieved of the responsibility of thinking (along with everyone else). What could be better for a government that wants to run our entire lives than reducing the entire population to tranquil, unthinking cattle?

Some might say that this would be really bad for our productivity. Not important. If people aren't productive, then we won't have to bother taxing them for being too productive. It's a win-win.

Everyone will just live their lives whatever way our enlightened leaders dictate. Without the capacity for original thought, they won't be able to cause all those undesirable symptoms of freedom, like unequal outcomes.

After all - isn't that the goal of constantly expanding the government, anyway? Might as well get it all over with at once - like ripping off a band-aid.

Wealth Redistribution: Two Stories

Anecdotes are never a valid substitute for good logic and fact; however, they can serve as examples to help illustrate logic.

I disagree with the concept of forced wealth redistribution on many levels. Most importantly, it violates one person's rights in the name of another's need. This sort of precedent does not bode well for a free society.

It also is not good for the prosperity of a society as a whole. While decreasing the incentive to work hard, it offers reward for not working hard. The logical implication of this is that people will tend to work less and produce less. Here is where my two stories come in.

Taxing the Rich

Having lunch with my friend last week, I found myself in a conversation about parents and living so far from home. My friend, whom I'll call Jane, expressed concern that her dad was bored now that he's retired.

I can understand that – my dad would never be able to sit on his hands at home. He'll probably always have some sort of occupation – even if as a mountaineering guide – because retirement would simply kill him.

From what I've been able to gather, Jane's parents are fairly well-off. They own a farm, and her dad was in some sort of medical profession. Both of them are well-educated.

So I asked Jane, "Why doesn't he just get a job?" To which she replied, "Because that would put him in the next income bracket, and he doesn't want to pay more taxes."

That kind of blew me away. Jane's dad is a highly educated – and formerly highly productive – member of society. And now, he's sitting at home, bored, because working isn't worth giving up more of his income.

To Give to the Poor

Where would his money go? Well, some of it would go to people like my in-laws' former tenant, whom I'll call Nancy.

Being a single mom, Nancy needed all the help she could get. And she was getting plenty – enough to rent a very nice house (better accommodations than I could afford at the time) – thanks to various state and federal aid.

Nancy, like many in her position, didn't want to be there forever. She wanted to go back to school so she could stand on her own and support her family.

So she got a part-time, minimum wage job, and started taking night classes. When she got the job, however, she no longer qualified for government aid – so they pulled the plug.

At that point, she had to make a decision: keep working, or pay the rent. She quit the job – and the classes – and went back to living off the government.

If Nancy had the determination to overcome her circumstances on her own, she probably could have. However, the incentive for not working was too great.

These two people, Nancy and Jane's dad, both left the workforce because of the incentives created by forced wealth redistribution. Their stories go to illustrate the point the logic already makes – that punishing success and rewarding failure merely leaves us with less success and more failure. It encourages more people to become a burden on others – and more people to shrug off their burdens.

It makes me wonder – what would our economy be like if those incentives were removed?

Fun Facts: Federal Taxes

Doing a little research on income and tax burden distribution in my spare time (I know, get a life, right?), I came across a few interesting nuggets of information to share. The following is the most recent data (2006) provided by the Congressional Budget Office here.

Income tax (after credits): 43.4% of tax receipts in 2006

• The top 10% of income earners pay 72% of the taxes.
  
• The top quintile pays 86%.
  
• The bottom 40% actually earn 3.6% after credits (meaning they pay negative income taxes)
  
• The effective income tax rate spans from 19% (top 1% of earners) to -6.6% (bottom quintile)
  
• Average effective tax rate is 9.1%
  

Payroll tax: 34.8%

• This is the only category in which the top 10% do not pay over half the total taxes collected
  
• The top 10% pay a quarter of these taxes
  
• The top quintile pays 43%, more than the bottom 3 combined
  
• Due to caps on taxable amount, the tax rate spans from 9.6% (second-highest quintile) to 1.6% (top 1%)
  
• Average effective rate is 7.5%
  

Corporate income taxes: 14.7%

• 80% is paid by the top 10% of earners
  
• The top 1% actually pays over 50% of total taxes
  
• Effective tax rate spans from 10.4% (top 1%) to 0.4% (bottom quintile)
  

Overall:

• The top 10% pay over half (55%) of all federal taxes
  
• The top 20% pays 69%
  
• The bottom 40% pays 5%
  
• Effective tax rate spans from 31.2% (top 1%) to 4.3% (bottom quintile)
  

So, next time you're enjoying one of the many services our federal government provides, be sure to thank a rich person…