Small Government Blog

by George Phillies
[Editor’s note: This information is extremely important and I am posting it without even checking for typos. Please give this matter serious attention.]
I have spent the time with the LPUS FEC reports needed to examine fundraising by the LNC over the past decade. The numerical columns, following this text, list the month, year, and income of the LNC. We have some obscurity in 2001, when the LNC chose to hide income and expenditures by filing on a semiyearly basis. However, a million dollars in a half-year is 160 000-170 000 dollars per month as an average for 2001, a total reached this year in only one month.

For 2005, a fourth column presents the financials as supplied to the LNC for the first half-year. Note that the income reported to the LNC is far below the income claimed in the FEC reports.

The numbers are staggering. Looking backward from the present to 1996, fundraising has collapsed. The implied total for 2005 is around 1.3 million dollars, far below the 2.1 million dollars of 2001 or the 1.8 million dollars of 1997. For this year, the LNC has budgeted to spend 1.8 or 1.9 million dollars, a third of which they do not have. It is not clear what the financial reserves were a year ago, but at the end of June cash reserves were basically gone.

For March and April, the Annual Report brought in an extra $120,000 or so. Other than those two months, income since Election Day has run slightly above $100,000 per month. I shall not consider whether the Iraq Exit Strategy has taken a small or large chunk out of donations, but the December 2004 donations already show serious deterioration, and changes in recent months are in the negative direction.

Donations are running far below donations in any previous period, going back to the days when the LNC was headquartered in the more unfortunate parts of DC.

Read Sean Haugh’s report on the last LNC meeting, visible at http://ncway.blogspot.com Entries for August 27 and a bit earlier. Do you see discussion of the donations? You can find reported a discussion that we need to do fundraising to replace the income lost when dues are shut off this January, but concern about current income is not strongly voiced by many LNC members.

It is inapparent that the LNC can persist along this path, and continue to function for any period of time, even though spending has dropped a great deal.

Mo Year FEC Internal
8 2005 98956.14
7 2005 101195.71
6 2005 103345.44 107000
5 2005 107510.23 110400
4 2005 145663.83 149000
3 2005 181356.10 185000
2 2005 151989.98 98900
1 2005 159956.94 101400

12 2004 118143.83 + last month of November
pg 2004 213826.51 Oct-Nov 2004
* 2004 75312.10 First two weeks of October
9 2004 136689.04
8 2004 131241.57
7 2004 148377.31
6 2004 207905.90
5 2004 310631.42
4 2004 173512.77
3 2004 291971.46
2 2004 147003.01
1 2004 119322.41

12 2003 137225.78
11 2003 114664.60
10 2003 183672.56
9 2003 132546.66
8 2003 206590.72
7 2003 154818.41
6 2003 156098.36
5 2003 93022.34
4 2003 131368.74
3 2003 156701.33
2 2003 189286.15
1 2003 148040.12

12 2002 124245.74 Includes last week November
11 2002 232205.01 Includes half of October
10 2002 91631.63 First HALF of October
7-9 2002 515857.03
4-6 2002 478097.79
1-3 2002 553942.33

B 2001 1037498.90 Second Half-Year
A 2001 1081893.01 First Half-Year

12 1999 158 000
11 1999 212 000
10 1999 250 000
9 1999 186 000
8 1999 170 000
7 1999 257 000
6 1999 341 000
5 1999 220 000
4 1999 193 000
3 1999 277 000
2 1999 194 000
1 1999 224 000

9 1998 218 000
1998 Total 2 521 000

9 1997 204 000
1997 Total 1 849 000

9 1996 300 000
1996 Total 2 188 000

9 1995 93 622
1995 Total 1 036 000

1994 Total 875 000
1993 Total 795 000

September 27, 2005

I wasn’t expecting to have a defining Libertarian moment tonight. My only expectations were of taking a few pictures of Andy LeCureaux, Libertarian Mayor Pro-Tem of Hazel Park, Michigan at the city council meeting tonight. (more…)

Now that the tide is turning against the Washington Fascists war against Iraq,they have one card left to play.

The gradualism card.

They have at their disposal the very valid argument that if the troops are pulled out too rapidly,chaos will reign and violence, already pervasive, will worsen.

But validity is not truth.

Americans who are just beginning to come to terms with the blatant wrongness of the war need to take a more nuanced view of the situation in Iraq.

The objective facts do not support the logic of gradual withdrawal.

On the contrary, the rate of withdrawal should be limited only by military logistics,i.e.,the fastest rate military commanders find feasible for an orderly,reasonably safe withdrawal.

It is mistaken to assume that withdrawal must be phased over time. It is based on the erroneous assumption that it is the presence of U.S. troops that prevents even worse violence and chaos.

Rather, U.S. military presence serves both as cause and exascerbating influence to the violence.

Moreover, as pointed out by Tom Engelhart and Michael Schwartz, much of the civilian death is directly at the hands of the U.S. military.They suggest that inspite of the additional inter-factional violence that would insue upon a U.S. withdrawal, overall violence may actually be reduced:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/engelhardt/engelhardt115.html

Additionally, as pointed out by Larry
C. Johnson, there are no positive scenarios, and prolonging U.S. presence can only serve to worsen the inevitable:

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/2144

I would argue that the initial invasion and the ongoing occupation are not distinct and discrete acts. Rather, the latter is merely a continuation of the former. Therefore, the occupation bears the same lack of moral justification that the initial invasion carrys; A fatal shortcoming that no amount of success could overcome.Thus, immediate withdrawal is moral imperative.

Clearly, aside from and in addition to the voluminous and compelling practical agruments for immediate withdrawal presented by Johnson and Engelhart, the abstract moral case for IMMEDIATE withdrawal is overwhelming.

—The Bikmessenger

I’ve spent a lot of time lately reading and commenting on the afterdowningstreet website, finally, I desided to take advantage of an opportunity to pick an argument about economics.

What motivated me was the arrogant, presumptous conflation of free market capitalism wiht the facsist oligrachy currently in force. It seems this conflation is evolving into an effective implementation of Orwellian Newspeak; I felt compelled to expose it for what it was.

Unlike Lew Rockwell,

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/speech-antiwar.html I’m inclined to be argumentative and confrontational.

Needless to say, my pro-free market comments did not elicit the same positive responses my anti-war commentary would usually draw.

At one point in an exchange, I was accused of the following:

“Vehement blind faith in your own theories about market forces as the answer to every issue isn’t a compelling argument. And it’s certainly not a subsitute for observation and rational thought.”

I proceeded to explain in detail the basis for my belief in free market economics as follows:

Vehement blind faith”,that’s an ironic description to make of an intransient, life-long ATHEIST who expects himself to consciously and explicitly grasp the basis of all he believes.

If you are a religious person, perhaps you can give me some insight as to what it’s like to entertain a believe based on faith, “blind” or otherwise.

On the other hand, given your beliefs as to economics, you should be able to advise my in any case.

Having established for myself as comprehensive,consistent and complete a metaphysical system as I’m able, I then used this as a guide to formulating an epistemological protocol:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0452010306/ref=sib_dp_pt/002-4215076-1168006#reader-link

Then, as a guide to practical application, I used this:

http://www.skeptic.com/oldsite/index.html

A Skeptical Manifesto
By Michael Shermer

A few pertinent excerpts:

“It is easy, even fun to challenge others beliefs, when we are smug in the certainty of our own. But when ours are challenged, it takes great patience and ego strength to listen with an unjaundiced ear.”

“Rational is given by the OED (Oxford English Dictionary) as: Having the faculty of reasoning; endowed with reason (p. 2420). And reason as A statement of some fact employed as an argument to justify or condemn some act, prove or disprove some assertion, idea, or belief”

“For the purpose of outlining a methodology for the rational skeptic to apply…on the simplest of levels, something that might be called the scientific method:”

1. Observation: Gathering data through the senses or sensory enhancing technologies.
2. Induction: Drawing general conclusions from the data. Forming hypothesis.
3. Deduction: Making specific predictions from the general conclusions.
4. Verification: Checking the predictions against further observations.

For example, how do we know the Earth is round?:

1. The shadow on the moon is round.
2. The mast of a ship is the last thing seen as it sails off the horizon.
3. The horizon is curved.
4. Photographs from space…”

These form the criteria upon which I answer for myself the most basic epistemological question; what common atributes apply to all falsehoods and what common attributes apply to facts,and the valid truths there from constructed?

On the other hand:

“…science helps us avoid dogmatism: the basing of conclusions on authority rather than science. For example, how do we know the Earth is round?:

1. Our parents told us.
2. Our teachers told us.
3. Our minister told us.
4. Our textbook told us.

Dogmatic conclusions are not necessarily invalid, but they do pose another question: how did the authorities come by their conclusions? Did they use science or some other means?”

Can you explain the epistemological process that leads you to belief in socalist economics?

Additionally, I’ve come to accept as the fundamental source of causation,the nature of the existants directly involved in any particular observed dynamic,i.e., by understanding the nature of an entity, it is possible to project a range of possible actions on it’s part.

One area where I find it interesting to apply this principle is social structure.Any specimen of any given organism, examined in isolation, will yield important clues as to the parameters within which a commensurate social structure can be projected.

Moreover, observation of species in the wild yields patterns of behavior consistent with the nature of the organism observed.

In all fairness, man, of course, is unique in his capacity to consciously contemplate these issues.

Thus,it seems unavoidable that man devise his own social structures.
This begs the question, I submit: although man can devise his own social structures(note that while in this endeavour, he MAY, but need not act alone), does he have license to step outside the bounds of his own nature?

It seems to me that from an intellectual perspective, it is probably necessary.However,at the level of refinement that proposes specific implementation, a return to the parameters set for man by his fundamental nature would seem obligatory if an efficacious system is to be proposed.

I expect you would appreciate how perplexing it is for me to note the advocacy of facsist imperialism, particularly when one of the facsists in Washington advocates direct copying from another species of a vastly different nature form homo sapiens!!!

http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000006DF2D.htm

In all fairness, however, the structure you, at least implicitly propose bears a disturbing resemblance to:

http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/15573;jsessionid=baa5-VLIHhB7aJ?fulltext=true

This might not be so puzzling save that these theories had been given ample opportunities over the course of human history, in particular throughout the developed world in the twentieth century to play themselves out to their inexorable,logical end.

Yet,in spite of the objectively verfiable evidence, I observe people doggedly (or should I say dogmatically)continuing to wholeheartedly advocate these theories, as though there were no evidence of the results they produce.Adding to the perplexity for me is the fact that many of said advocates are clearly more intellectually able than I; as noted early on in this discussion:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Economics/FreeMarketFraudGalbraith.html

and:

http://www.geocities.com/~johngray/wcon304.htm

I was a bit nonplussed by this for years, until Michael Shirmer came to my rescue:

Skeptic: Smart People Believe Weird Things; September 2002; by Michael Shermer;
(Copyright © 1993-2005 Scientific American, Inc. All rights reserved)

“In April 1999, when I was on a lecture tour for my book Why People Believe Weird Things, the psychologist Robert Sternberg attended my presentation at Yale University. His response to the lecture was both enlightening and troubling. It is certainly entertaining to hear about other people’s weird beliefs, Sternberg reflected, because we are confident that we would never be so foolish. But why do smart people fall for such things?” Sternberg’s challenge led to a second edition of my book, with a new chapter expounding on my answer to his question: Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for nonsmart reasons.
Rarely do any of us sit down before a table of facts, weigh them pro and con, and choose the most logical and rational explanation, regardless of what we previously believed.MOST OF US, MOST OF THE TIME,COME TO OUR BELIEFS FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS HAVING LITTLE TO DO WITH EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE AND LOGICAL REASONING.”

It would seem from your remarks(and I have observed this phenomena on many occasions), that the curious twist that the belief that unfounded beliefs were arrived at through “observation and rational thought”may also fall within the bounds of the process.

It would be an interesting matter to address from the perspective of memetics,but that’s whole other issue.

————————–

A Chinese saying suggests that he who defines terms wins the agrument.It’s time to establish some,clear,consise definitions of terms specifically for discourse on economics with left-wing statists,as the pendulum begins it’s historic swing back in their favor.

More on this to follow shortly.

—The Bikemessenger

BETRAYAL OF PRINCIPLE

In the early days of the 1990s a thirst for liberty grew in the Great State of Michigan. Most likely it was spawned out of the rise of conservative talk radio, the emergence of the internet and the continuing statist bent of federal, state and local governments.

This thirst manifested itself through the movement to re-establish the right to keep and bear arms. The most fundamental of rights, self defense, motivated many who never were involved in politics at all. Perhaps it was the gradual diminishment of personal responsibility, gnawing at self esteem. Or maybe it was the recognition that the government could not protect the citizenry from even the most mundane crimes. (more…)

In the early days of the 1990s a thirst for liberty grew in the Great State of Michigan. Most likely it was spawned out of the rise of conservative talk radio, the emergence of the internet and the continuing statist bent of federal, state and local governments.

This thirst manifested itself through the movement to re-establish the right to keep and bear arms. The most fundamental of rights, self defense, motivated many who never were involved in politics at all. Perhaps it was the gradual diminishment of personal responsibility, gnawing at self esteem. Or maybe it was the recognition that the government could not protect the citizenry from even the most mundane crimes. (more…)

My nephew and his wife are having a baby (or maybe had it already and they didn’t want to call me in the middle of the night). I won’t be blogging for the next few days, but some of the other bloggers on this site will continue posting.

It seems unlikely at this point that the parents will use my suggested name, but “Dharma Freedom” is still in the running.

Sometime in the next few days expect to see an interesting posting from one of our bloggers on how (and why) the Republicans split the Libertarian spawned gun movement in Michigan. It is a true incident. If you think it can’t happen or it doesn’t happen, this may open your eyes. It’s not a particularly remarkable situation — it’s just politics.

Back in the early 70’s Saturday morning cartoons included something called “Schoolhouse Rock.” I think it was on ABC and I remember watching it with my niece and nephews (I was a young uncle). It was basically a series of short grammar, math, and history lessons set to “rock” music for kids.

I wish ABC would bring this series back. And I wish our LP Staff would watch it. Even though they spent $5,250 on editing in August, they still miss the basics. They embarass the party and themselves. I wouldn’t mind so much if they went back and fixed the errors when the errors are brought to their attention (and I make sure that they are aware of the errors), but they are both lazy and arrogant.

Last week we brought to their attention the difference between “disperse” and “disburse.” This week, we examine their special feature, “Tom DeLay Declares “Victory” Over Wasteful Federal Spending,” which says:

According to the Heritage Foundation the federal government spends $20 billion a year on farm subsidies that benefit large farms and agribusinesses. Due to the fact the amount of a farm subsidy is computed on the amount of crops grown, the farms will large tracts of land and typically the most profitable; stand to receive the biggest subsidies.

The second sentence in the above contains at least 3 errors that are glaringly obvious on the first read.

I guess I understand now why they spent $5,250 on editing last month.

The next time someone tries to tell you that government is “the good guys” read them this story.

FEMA Orders Death

Having been a ‘first responder’ in the past, I can tell you that I would have kept administering life support until the FEMA wimp ordered his goons to drag me away. There’s nothing like a little really, really bad publicity to get bureaucrats fired, tried, and sent off to jail.

The thought comes to mind that we have our ever-eager lawyers to thank for such ridiculous paralysis.

Abolish FEMA!